Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Mersey Tunnel Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

OFFICERS (BURMA ALLOWANCE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India id the Burma allowance, which was withdrawn from Central Government officials at Rangoon in 1924, will now be restored with full retrospective effect, in view of the fact that it was sanctioned in 1919 on a scale which was to last for 10 years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend on Tuesday last, the whole question of the grant of Burma allowance has been under examination by the Government of India, and I shall be happy to communicate with him when their Report has been received and considered by my Noble Friend.

UNDERGROUND EMPLOYMENT (WOMEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many women, approximately, are employed underground in the Indian mines?

Earl WINTERTON: The average number so employed daily in 1926 was 31,889. The Government of India are considering making regulations to prohibit the employment of women underground, by progressive stages, in certain classes of mine (including the chief coal mines) and forthwith in others.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Noble Lord be good enough to let me know when the first definite step is taken?

Earl WINTERTON: I will certainly inform the hon. and gallant Member when we have made progress, but he will appreciate that it involves consideration by the Provincial Governments and other authorities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Noble Lord is aware that I would like to give credit to his Government it the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, certainly.

FRANCHISE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total population of India.; how many of these have a vote in the Legislative Assembly; what were the numbers who
actually voted at the election of the existing Assembly; and whether he can state what proportion of such votes were cast by persons resident in the towns and what by persons resident in the country districts?

Earl WINTERTON: The total population of British India was returned at the Census of 1921 as just over 247 millions. If my hon. Friend will study the Indian Electoral Return presented last year (Cmd. 2923) he will find the answers to the rest of his question so far as figures are available

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the number of persons who voted in the election for the return of the existing Legislative Assembly is a mere fraction of the vast number of 247,000,000, and, in these circumstances, how can the existing Assembly be considered adequately to represent the millions of India?

SIRDAR DIWAN SINGH (ARREST).

Mr. LANSBURY: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to furnish particulars in regard to the arrest of Sirdar Diwan Singh, editor and proprietor of the weekly paper, Rayasat, at the request of the Patiala Durbar?

Earl WINTEPTON: Mr. Diwan Singh was arrested by the Delhi Police on a written accusation by the Patiala Police, but the magistrate immediately released him on bail, and a subsequent application for his extradition by the Patiala Durbar was refused. The circumstances have been inquired into by the Government of India, and my Noble Friend sees no reason for any action on his part.

CABLE AND WIRELESS COMMUNI CATIONS (CHARGES).

Mr. PILCHER: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the apprehension existing in India lest a merger of the Marconi Company and Eastern Telegraph Company may deprive the Indian public, Press, and trading community of the benefit of the economies, reduced charges, and increased efficiency in the telegraph services to which the discovery of the beam system has given, and was expected increasingly to give, rise; and whether he
can give an assurance that the Government will be vigilant to take all necessary measures to protect the Indian public against the dangers of monopoly and of an artificial inflation of cable charges to and from India?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not received any representations from India, but is fully alive to the dangers referred to in the last part of the question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will any Indian governmental rights be alienated through this merger?

Earl WINTERTON: No rights will be alienated. The Government of India is interested in the matter, but I shall have to have notice of the question in order to explain exactly the extent to which they are interested. Of course, no rights will be alienated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Or property?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir.

Mr. PILCHER: Is the Noble Lord aware of the big reductions in charges which came into force last year, and can he give an assurance that these reductions will not be lost?

Earl WINTERTON: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a much wider question than an Indian question. It affects the whole Empire. If my hon. Friend wishes to know the effect of the merger upon cable rates, he must put a question either to the Leader of the House or to the Postmaster-General.

WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (CONCESSIONS).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Governments receive royalties from the platinum and other sub-surface mineral concessionaires in the West African Colonies; and, if so, what percentage?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the DOMINIONS (Mr. Amery): No mining has hitherto been done in Sierra Leone, but a royalty will be imposed on platinum before mining leases are granted. In the Gold Coast concessionaires pay a tax of 1s. in the £ on
profits. In Nigeria there are royalties on all minerals mined, 4s. an ounce on gold, 5 per cent. on other precious metals, and at varying rates on other metals, with a sliding scale in the case of tin.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

IBN SAUD.

Mr. DAY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any effort is being made by the representatives of the British Government to get into contact with Ibn Saud for the purpose of discussion of the present situation in Arabia?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. As I informed the House on the 12th of March, His Majesty's Government have, on more than one occasion, suggested to King Ibn Saud that a meeting should take place between himself and the Resident in the Persian Gulf. As, however, the King has not seen his way to adopt this suggestion, His Majesty's Government have now offered to send out Sir Gilbert Clayton as a special envoy to discuss matters with His Majesty, with a. view to clearing up the whole situation.

Mr. DAY: Has any reply been received?

Mr. AMERY: No; if I had received a reply, I should have been glad to communicate it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this again show the necessity for having a representative of His Majesty, who may be a Mohammedan, at Mecca or at the Court of Ibn Saud?

Mr. AMERY: That is a matter to be considered.

AKHWAN RAIDS.

Mr. DAY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further reports on the situation arising from the Akhwan attitude towards Iraq; and whether he can make a full statement to the House?

Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member will understand that reports, of varying degrees of reliability, are constantly reaching me from various quarters. I have given the House from time to time such information as could be regarded as
reliable, and I shall continue to do so as fresh information is received. For the moment I have nothing material to add.

KENYA (NATIVE RESERVES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has authorised the alienation of any of that land lying to the north of Laikipia, in Kenya Colony, which has for many years past been used by the Samburu for the grazing of their herds ; whether he can say whether any applications have been made to the Government of Kenya for allotments of land in this region; and, if so, who were the applicants and what reply has been made to them?

Mr. AMERY: The land in question consists of about 2,000,000 acres of the former Northern Masai Reserve, into which the Samburu have penetrated, though, according to my information, that penetration has been slight in the southern part of the area. In November, 1926, I decided that the northern portion, rather over 500,000 acres, should reserved for the use of the Samburu, that a middle area, very roughly 600,000 acres, should be left open for further consideration when the possibilities of the remainder of the Samburu country had been adequately explored, and that the southern portion, say 850,000 acres, should be available for alienation to Europeans for pastoral purposes, subject to an equitable allocation of water and salt licks along the boundary separating it from the middle portion. I am riot aware that applications have been made to the Government of Kenya for allotments of land in this southern portion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the portion he proposes to take contains the only river water to which these people can take their herds during droughts, and, if it be taken away, the position of the rest of this area will become impossible ; and will he give instructions that their water rights in this old alienated area shall be preserved?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I am not aware of the facts stated by the hon. and gallant Member, but the need for seeing that the Samburu settlement in the northern
part of the area should have water and access to salt has been carefully considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should these lands be taken away at all from this inoffensive and very law-abiding tribe?

Mr. AMERY: The land did not belong to these people; they have quite recently come into it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORT'HY: Have not the people who want the land come even more recently into the country?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: What steps are being taken to delimit the reserves for the Samburu; and has there been any inquiry into the area required for the Samburu?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir; I thought I made that clear in my answer. An area of 500,000 acres has been definitely allotted for the use of the Samburu, and another 600,000 acres with water and salt facilities are being held in suspense, pending a fuller investigation as to what other lands are available to the Samburu in their own country.

IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the serious hardships which are being endured by ex-British civil servants in Southern Ireland, many of whom have been without salary or pension for several years notwithstanding the special rights conferred upon them by Article 10 of the Irish Treaty and the express guarantees of the British Government; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: So far as I am aware, the number of cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers is very limited, and I hope that circumstances will soon permit of these cases being disposed of.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are there not many cases of people previously with substantial salaries who have had neither employment, pay, nor pension for two and a half years, and does not the right hon.
Gentleman realise the terrible hardship which is entailed, many of the wives having to go out to work?

Mr. AMERY: My information is that there are only a few cases of those who have not yet received compensation pending this matter being decided. If my hon. Friend has any information of cases of hardship, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND CULTIVATION.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the local legislation Bills now before Parliament, and the amount of agricultural land which is being yearly lost to agriculture through the urbanisation of rural areas and the spreading of big towns; and whether he will in future include in annual agricultural statistics the number of acres lost to agriculture on this account?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that a certain amount of agricultural land is lost to agriculture each year through various causes, including those mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. Owing to the difficulties experienced hitherto in getting accurate information on the subject it has not been possible to publish any reliable statistics. I am keeping the matter under review, but I cannot hold out much hope of being able to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's wishes.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of compensation which has been paid, or agreed to be paid, in respect of the destruction of cattle destroyed under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order at King's Norton, Leicestershire?

Mr. GUINNESS: The amount of compensation payable for the animals slaughtered by order of the Ministry in connection with foot-and-mouth disease at King's Norton, is £4,116 4s.

IMPORTED BULBS (DISEASE).

Mr. LOOKER: 29
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether (1) he
has received any further evidence of disease in imported bulbs; and the nature of the evidence he requires before taking action;
(2) he will cause samples to be taken of all importations of imported bulbs; and will he cause such samples to be tested for the existence of disease before such importations are released for cultivation; and
(3) he can obtain information as to the steps taken by the United States of America to ensure that disseased bulbs are not admitted into that country, with a view to their adoption, if practicable?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have received further complaints of disease in imported bulbs, and the subject was brought before the Horticultural Advisory Council on the 15th March. It appears that the complaints have special reference to the so-called "Yellow Disease" of hyacinths which cannot always be detected by an inspection of the bulbs. The council recommended that further steps should be taken to prevent the entry of these diseased bulbs, and I am now considering what practicable steps can be taken to this end. The sampling of all imported bulbs would involve a considerable increase in the inspectorial staff and also some dislocation of trade. As regards the American regulations I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on the 27th February last.

Mr. LOOKER: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to inform us of the result of these inquiries?

Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot give any date, but I will be glad to inform my hon. Friend when I have any further information.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose an import tax upon both foreign flowers and bulbs, which are articles of luxury, and are quite suitable for taxation?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think that I quite agree that foreign bulbs are articles of luxury. They are an important form of raw material for one side of the agricultural industry which grows them.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Are not daffodil bulbs and tulip bulbs suffering from "eel-worm" disease and "fire," respectively, imported into this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: This particular disease is in hyacinth bulbs. There may be importation of bulbs with other diseases, and it shows the great difficulty of controlling the possibility of these imported infections, some of which already exist in this country.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Do the bulbs to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred come from any specific country, or from more than one country?

Mr. GUINNESS: Mostly, this trade in bulbs is with Holland.

LAND DRAINAGE, DONCASTER AREA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has accepted the recommendations of the Drainage Commission relating to the area around the county borough of Doncaster; whether a drainage Court has been set up; and, if so, will he give the names of the personnel?

Mr. W. PALING: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet reached any decision relating to the recommendations of the Commission on Mining and Drainage in an area around the county borough of Doncaster; and whether he intends to set up a drainage Court?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Report referred to has only just been published, and it would be premature to say what course the Government will adopt with regard to the recommendations of the Commission. I may point out, however, that legislation would be necessary before they could be put into operation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any possibility of legislation being enacted this year to deal with this very peculiar problem?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I cannot promise that.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he is likely to reach a decision, so that we may put down a question?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is no chance of an early decision. The Report was published only on 12th March, and there
are many complicated questions which will have to be examined before we can reach any decision.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply that there is no possibility of land which lies derelict being dealt with during the present year?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not see the slightest chance of legislation on the subject.

Mr. PALING: Was not this Commission set up because of the great importance of having this question dealt with immediately, and now that the Commission has reported, are we not entitled to expect that the Report will be considered and a decision arrived at?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Report is being considered, and we shall arrive at a decision as soon as ever we can, but the exigencies of Parliamentary time are such that it is quite impossible to hope for legislation during the present year.

Mr. PALING: In view of what has happened before, I am inclined to think that this is merely a means of putting off the whole business.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Minister consider that this House ought to have five months' holiday in the year?

LAND SALES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 27 and 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) the approximate acreage of agricultural land that has changed hands since 1920 and the price paid for it;
(2) the total cost for transfer charges of all agricultural holdings which have changed hands since 1920?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to reply to the hon. Member's inquiries.

CHINA (SITUATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state briefly what is the present military and political situation in China?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The Fourth Plenary Session of the Kuomintang was held at Nanking from the 3rd to the 8th of February with the object of reconciling the various factions and reorganising the Nationalist administration. As a result, there were formed a government council of 49 members and a standing committee of five with Tan Yen-kai as chairman, and a military council of 73 and a standing committee of 12 with Chiang-Kai-shek as chairman. Various ministerial changes were effected, the principal one being the replacement of Dr. C. C. Wu as Minister for Foreign Affairs by Mr. Huang Fu. The situation in mid-China continues very unsettled, and there are no signs of the healing of the breach between Wuhan and Nanking. Efforts were made to put in Tan Yen-kai as head of the civil administration, but the Wuhan party declined to receive him. It was also proposed to organise from Hupeh and Hunan a fourth unit for the northern campaign under this leader, but the attempt had to be abandoned, and His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow reports that Nanking appears to have given up hope of enlisting support from that region. On the 10th of March the Consul-General at Hankow reported a serious Communist rising in Hunan, where Communists had occupied Liling. A regiment of Cheng Chien's troops sent to suppress them mutinied and joined the Communists, and there was fear that other troops of the same command sent for this purpose would also prove unreliable. The Report further stated that Changsha was a hot-bed of Communism and that Hankow was also badly infected and that, in spite of almost daily raids and executions, the authorities did not feel secure, while in the country districts of Hupeh almost complete anarchy prevailed. The renewed northern campaign was to have opened on the 15th of March with a combined offensive by Chiang Kai-shek, Feng Yu-hsiang and Yen Hsi-shan, but, although General Chiang is reported to have left for the Front, no great activity has been shown by these commanders, each of whom has apparently been waiting for his allies to strike the first blow. According to a Report just received, a severe defeat has been inflicted on Feng Yu-hsiang by the northern forces.

SECRET SERVICE (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office is responsible for making disbursements of the money granted to the Secret Service from public funds; and whether these disbursements are made in every case with the knowledge and approval of the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Secretary of State is the person responsible for the disbursement of the Secret Service money allotted to his Department.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the provisions of the Bryan Conciliation Treaty are being discussed as part of the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty now being negotiated with the United States?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give any further information on this point at present, except to say that no proposal has been made to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain for any revision or modification of the Bryan-Spring Rice Treaty of the 15th of September, 1924.

FOREIGN OFFICE (PUBLICITY).

Mr. E. BROWN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any complaints as to the working of the Foreign Office system of publicity both at Geneva and in London; and whether he is satisfied that the present arrangement gives British Press representatives an equal opportunity of obtaining necessary information with their foreign colleagues?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; the answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that comparisons unfavourable to his system in contrast with the French system have been made by British and American journalists?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am aware that, I think, two journalists did complain, but I am not aware that their complaints have any foundation.

SURTAX, SPAIN (BACHELOR LAYMEN).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the surtax levied on the Income Tax of bachelor laymen in Spain is regarded by Englishmen in that country as a form of discrimination against the Protestant foreigners; and whether he will consider the advisability of representing the matter to the Spanish Government with a request that the Italian precedent should be followed and foreigners should be exempted from the tax?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the tax in question discriminates either in respect of nationality or of religion, and I see no reason for representations by His Majesty's Government.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERKS' REMOVAL EXPENSES).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether permanent un established clerks recently transferred from the Dublin area office to posts in England received any payments towards their removal expenses in excess of the prescribed allowances of 3d. per mile for married men and 1½d. per mile for single men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD.

Mr. E. BROWN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has received any Reports from the Industrial Transference Board; and, if so, whether he proposes to make them available to Members of this House?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have not received any report from the Board, but
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7th March to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

Mr. BATEY: How long does the Minister think this Transference Board will have to be in existence before he receives a report showing that they have found work for any men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member would repeat the question, as I really could not hear it.

Mr. BATEY: I was asking how long the Minister considers that this Transference Board will have to be in existnce before he recives a report showing that they have found work for any men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: From that point of view, no term is set to the existence of the Board., and I am in touch with it.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister not aware that the President of the Board of Trade said that this Board would be set up on 7th December. Has there not been sufficient time for the Board to present a report showing that they have found work for at least one man?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I can assure the hon. Member that they have found work for a great many more than one man. I have explained a number of times that what they have been doing is to co-operate with the existing officials and have been trying to put extra power behind the different executive departments. I have no doubt that in due time, and if Parliament wishes it, I can produce a written statement of what the Board have been doing. I have no doubt, if there is interest in Parliament, that I can do it before long. I have been in touch with the Board and I know what they have been doing. For example, they are approaching different employers of labour in order to try to find places for men.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is wide public interest in the operations of this Board, and does he not consider that it would be wise for him to call for a report, so that Members of this House, and people in the country who have an interest in the matter, may know what is going on?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that point.

COURTS OF REFEREES (CHAIRMEN).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour how many chairmen of the new Courts of Referees have been appointed; and whether only applicants with legal training are being considered?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No new appointments have yet been made. In general, legal qualifications are regarded as necessary but this is not an absolute rule.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask if any of the chairmen are other than those who have had legal training?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

JUSTICES' CLERKS (SUPERANNUA- TION).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that justices' clerks are not entitled to superannuation allowance on retirement under the local government superannuation scheme introduced five years ago; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to bring these officials under the scheme?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (SirWilliam Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I agree with the recommendation in the recent Report of the Committee on Superannuation of Local Government Employés that the scheme is not suitable for justices' clerks.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has recently issued any Regulations which authorise panel doctors to charge insured persons over the age of 65 the sum of is. for medical certificates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. There is no power under the Acts to fix a fee for certificates which are not required for National Health Insurance purposes.

Mr. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that insured persons over the age of 65, who
are not entitled to cash payments, are still entitled to medical advice, and that that medical advice includes medical certificates, if required?

Sir K. WOOD: As my answer implies, a charge other than that authorised under the National Insurance Act is not a proper charge.

EDUCATION (NURSERY SCHOOLS, LANCASTER).

Mr. KELLY: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery schools in the county of Lancaster?

Mr. PENNY(Lord of the Treasury): There are three nursery schools in Manchester and one in Salford.

Mr. KELLY: Has the Board of Education received a request from some quarters in Lancashire for the setting up of more of these nursery schools

Mr. PENNY: I have heard nothing so far, but I will see that the hon. Member's question is conveyed to the President of the Board of Education.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How do those figures compare with other counties?

INCOME TAX (TERRITORIAL OFFICERS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the considerable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Territorial officers in the discharge of their official duties; and whether he will make arrangements so that such expenses are deducted by these officers from their Income Tax returns in the same way as expenses in connection with the running of a business can be deducted?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I regret that I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. His proposal runs directly counter to an important principle of our Income Tax code which applies to all classes of taxpayers, including the trading community, and under which deductions for Income Tax purposes are confined to
such expenditure as is necessarily incurred in earning the profits or income in respect of which the tax is charged.

Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the very patriotic service of these officers and to the fact that, this expenditure was incurred in discharge of their public duties does the Financial Secretary not think that the Inland Revenue might well consider whether some concession could not be made?

Mr. SAMUEL: The position is entirely governed by the principles laid down in the Income Tax Acts code, and I am not in a position to give a favourable reply to my hon. Friend's question.

Sir W. DAVISON: While the hon. Gentleman may not be able to give a favourable answer to this question, having regard to the law as it stands today, will he consider whether the law should not be altered in the direction suggested in the question?

Mr. E. BROWN: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to write a patriotic poem on this theme?

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: Does the hon. Member realise that this is a very serious question, seeing that the pay and allowances of these officers are very small, and could not some concession like the one suggested be made?

Mr. CAMPBELL: Are not these men giving voluntary service to the country?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will most certainly give the matter careful consideration, and see that the views of my hon. and gallant Friend are laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When this matter is being considered will the fact be borne in mind that when these Regulations were first drawn up the Income Tax was very much lower than it is now and the pay of these officers has been increased by very little?

ROAD GRANTS (BRITISH STONE).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during the past four years 956,420 tons of road-stone and 653,545 tons of setts and kerbing-stone have been
imported into this country, mainly from Belgium and Norway; that the sum of £2,772,678 has gone abroad in payment of these goods, while at the same time there are British quarries equipped with the latest machinery and capable of supplying all possible demands; that over 2,000 men are at present unemployed in the British road-stone industry; and whether he will make it a condition of payments out of the Road Fund that stone from British quarries shall be used exclusively?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I must apologise for the length of the answer to this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it."]
I will do so.

Following is the answer:

The figures quoted represent with substantial accuracy the amount and value of broken granite imported from foreign countries during the past four years, but I am not in a position to state how high a proportion of it was actually used as road stone, nor am I aware of the number of men at present unemployed in the British road stone industry as distinguished from the "Stone Quarrying and Mining" group. As showing, however, the relative importance of the figures of imported broken granite which my hon. Friend estimates at nearly 1,000,000 tons in four years, it should be observed that the total tonnage of road stone conveyed over the railways in Great Britain during the past four years amounted to upwards of 47,000,000 tons. To this must be added materials conveyed by other means of transport.

With regard to the suggestion that the exclusive use of British materials should be made a condition of grant from the Road Fund, I would point out that only a portion of the work of highway authorities comes under my review. Although the use of British materials was made a condition of grants towards works expedited for the relief of unemployment, I am not prepared to apply this condition to the whole of the work of highway authorities throughout the country. But as I have already explained, Circulars have been issued urging upon local authorities the desirability of using British materials and plant.

ZAMBESI RIVER (BRIDGE).

Sir JOHN POWER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the suggested railway bridge over the Zambesi is expected to be authorised at an early date?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Anglesey on Monday last. I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (AFRICANCOLONIES).

Sir J. POWER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the tariff preferences now accorded by this country to several of the products of the Colonies and Protectorates in Africa, steps will be taken to terminate the treaties which prevent those Colonies and Protectorates offering preference to British products?

Mr. AMERY: It is too early now to come to a final decision regarding the revision or renewal of the treaties debarring the grant of Imperial preference by Certain Colonies and Protectorates. I would, however, call the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that various considerations besides those referred to in the question will have to be taken into account, and I am not in a position to hold out any definite prospect that the action suggested will be taken.

Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all the Crown Colonies and Protectorates in Africa one sees an enrmous increase of foreign goods coming in, and surely the time has arrived when some action should be taken?

Mr. AMERY: That point will be taken into consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that British trade with West Africa has been growing very steadily and rapidly?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of companies registered as engaged in the artificial silk industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. KELLY: What are the statements made by the Department with regard to artificial silk based upon, when the hon. Member cannot tell us the number of companies in the country, although that information could be supplied by many hon. Members within the sound of my voice?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Artificial silk is subject to Excise Duty, and consequently there is full information as to the quantity of artificial silk produced in this country.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that 15 companies against one are being or have been established during the last three years?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that I have not the exact figures in my mind.

Sir H. CROFT: Has it not been stated by the great Dutch expert who is erecting a factory in this country?

Mr. SKELTON: Is it really the case that the Board of Trade have no tabular statistics as to the number and type of companies in this country?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The task of classifying and analysing the register of companies is an almost impossible one, except at great expense.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Is it not a fact that a great many companies which are registered for other purposes use artificial silk as one of their raw materials, and therefore it is impossible to get statistics with regard to them?

Mr. KELLY: As the question does not ask for information regarding companies other than artificial silk companies, will the hon. Member endeavour to obtain this information?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I cannot ask the Registrar-General at Somerset House to go through many thousands of companies to prepare an answer to this question?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Has the safeguarding of industries any bearing on this question?

COMPANIES (BALANCE SHEETS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the failure of auditors' certificates, as revealed at a recent company meeting, to prevent gross exaggeration in balance sheets of the figures purporting to represent stocks in hand; whether his attention has been called to a recent balance sheet of a shipping company in which ships and shipping investments and general investments are lumped together and valued at over £8,000,000; and whether, in view of the desirability of obtaining more adequate disclosure in balance sheets, he proposes, either by Amendment to the new Companies Bill or otherwise, to seek additional powers to meet such cases?

H. WILLIAMS: I have seen references in the Press to matters which the hon. Member probably has in mind. As he is aware, the Companies Bill is at present under consideration in Standing Committee, and any Amendments that may be moved will no doubt receive full consideration by the Committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the desirability of assisting any Amendment in this direction?

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are considering this and all other relevant matters on their merits.

AFRICA (INFANT MORTALITY).

Sir J. POWER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in recent years there has been any general decrease in the infantile mortality in the colonies, protectorates, and mandated territories in Africa; and whether any special efforts are being made to deal with the problem of infant mortality in other countries?

Mr. AMERY: It is exceedingly difficult as yet to obtain reliable returns of births and deaths among the populations of tropical Africa but in areas from which the returns may be regarded as fairly accurate, as in the Buganda Kingdom of the Uganda Protectorate and in certain West African towns, there is evidence of slow improvement in the infantile mortality rate. In most areas, however, the rate remains regrettably high.
As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for Reading, in reply to a similar question on 21st March last year, the Governments of tropical Colonies are fully alive to the importance of this matter. Infant welfare clinics are being established and women doctors, nurses and health visitors appointed for special duty; the work of these officers, notably in Malaya, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, has been of a high order. In this connection I would specially mention the work of voluntary agencies such as the Child Welfare League of Kenya and the Child Welfare Society in Singapore, and the efforts which have been made in the West Indian Colonies to deal with this problem.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions what amount has been saved by the Ministry during the past financial year by withdrawals or reductions of dependants' pensions owing to the operation of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: A special record of these cases has not been kept. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that, as has been stated more than once, the net result of any adjustment of a need pension, consequent on the grant of contributory pension under the Act, is probably in the majority of cases, an increase of the aggregate charge upon public funds.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his Department ought to have the figures as to the effects resulting from the application of the Contributory Pensions Act?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir; I do not think there is any necessity for that at all.

PALESTINE (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. BARR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has completed his inquiry into the increase in the number of places for the sale of alcoholic liquors in Jerusalem and at the
railway stations in Palestine; whether he can state the precise increase in the number since that country was taken under our mandate; what is the relation of the increase to the growth of the population; and whether he can make any further statement on the subject?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer to this question contains a considerable number of figures I will, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that before 1922 licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Palestine were issued by the Ottoman Public Debt Administration and that the relevant records of the administration cannot be traced. The information available as to the number of licences issued since 1922 is given in the following table:—


Year
Jerusalem.
Southern District (including Towns of Jaffa, Tel-Aviv, Hebron, Gaza, Beersheba).
Northern District (including towns of Haifa, Nablus, Safad and Tiberias.


1922
…
235
*
128


1923
…
305
*
188


1924
…
308
*
205


1925
…
315
345
186


1926
…
323
343
195


1927
…
290
251
*


* No information available.

Licences are valid for twelve months only and must be renewed annually. The High Commissioner considers that the increase in 1923 as compared with 1922 is in the main attributable to the stricter control introduced when the functions of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration were taken over by the Palestine Government.

Notwithstanding the very considerable increase of population of European origin since 1924 the number of licences has not increased and I do not consider it necessary to take any action in the matter.

DOG RACING BILL.

Mr. MACKINDER: 46.
(for Mr. W. THORNE) asked the Prime Minister if
he will give special facilities for passing the Bill to provide for the licensing of dog-racing courses, which was introduced on Wednesday last?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Prime Minister regrets that at this period of the Session he can make no statement in regard to facilities for Private Members' Bills.

RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 4.
(for Sir FRANK NELSON) asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement on the rubber question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Prime Minister hopes to be in a position to make a statement on this subject before the House rises for Easter.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

Mr. MACKINDER: 48.
(for Mr. W. THORNE) asked the Prime Minister if the Government intends to introduce and proceed with the proposed Road Traffic Bill this Session?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As has already been stated, subject to the exigencies of public business, the Government intend to ask the present Parliament to pass this Bill into law, but my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to do so in the present Session.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. MACKINDER: 53.
(for Mr. W. THORNE) asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a number of films have reduced the wages of their employés, who are old age pensioners, by amounts varying from 2s. 6d. to 10s. per week in consequence of the new Act coming into force; and if he will introduce legislation to prohibit this practice?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information to the effect stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on this subject in the course of the Debate on the 22nd February on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what redress old age pensioners have when they are faced with a demand from employers that they should accept lower wages because they are in receipt of a pension?

Sir K. WOOD: I would recommend the hon. and gallant Member to study the Debate which took place on the 22nd February.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, I heard that Debate, and of course, as usual, enjoyed his speech; but of what use is it to recommend the Debate to these poor people who are faced with a reduction of wages, and has the right hon. Gentleman no power in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot add anything to what has been said already.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this is being practised on any large scale throughout the country?

Sir K. WOOD: Not that I am aware of.

LABOUR LEAGUE OF EX-SERVICE MEN (UNIFORM).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 55.
(for Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the wearing of a uniform practically identical with that of a British soldier by an organisation called the Labour League of Ex-service Men; and whether he will take action to prevent the wearing of the King's uniform by unauthorised persons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been called to the uniform worn by members of this organisation; but I do not think it is correct to describe it as practically identical with any British Army uniform, and I do not propose to take any action in regard to it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is an ex-soldier allowed to wear uniform on ceremonial occasions?

PRISON SERVICE (PROMOTION).

Mr. GARDNER: 56.
asked the Home Secretary if, when there are vacancies for governorships of prisons and other higher
ranks, he will consider the advisability of giving opportunities to experienced qualified officers already in the service to fill these posts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Selection Board, who submit names for my formal approval, tell me that the qualifications of serving officers are very carefully considered whenever vacancies in higher ranks arise.

Mr. GARDNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of men have been promoted from the ranks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really could not say that without notice. If the hon. Member will put down a question, he shall, of course, have the information.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ROYAL OAK."

Mr. AMMON: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make a statement to the House concerning the reported trouble on board His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak," which has caused the Admiral's flag to be lowered?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having put down this question and for having given me such ample notice. The necessity for the disciplinary action taken by the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, against Rear-Admiral Collard, Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel arose as follows:
On Saturday, 10th March, immediately before the Fleet was due to sail for combined exercises with the Atlantic Fleet, Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel, of His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak," handed in written statements to Rear-Admiral Collard, who was Rear-Admiral in the First Battle Squadron, with his flag in His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak," having reference to certain differences that had arisen between the Rear-Admiral and the two officers in question.
The sailing of the Fleet was postponed 15 hours, and a Court of Inquiry, consisting of a Vice-Admiral and two Rear-Admirals, was convened to investigate the matter. On receipt of their report, the Commander-in-Chief proposed to transfer
Rear-Admiral Collard's flag to His Majesty's Ship "Resolution"; for reasons wholly creditable to him, the Rear-Admiral preferred to leave at once. The Commander-in-Chief, therefore, directed him to strike his flag and remain at Malta. Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel were relieved of their positions in "Royal Oak" by the Commander-in-Chief's orders, and were directed to return to England.
The Admiralty received the Commander-in-Chief's telegraphic report early on Monday, the 12th, the Fleet sailed a.m. Monday, the 12th, and for the remainder of the week the Commander-in-Chief was handling large forces under conditions approximating to those of war. On Monday, the 12th, the Admiralty requested the Commander-in-Chief to report the nature of the differences in question and the finding of the Court of Inquiry. The reply, which was received p.m. Tuesday, the 13th, stated that it was not possible to telegraph an adequate summary of the questions at issue, or of the finding of the Court, which would not be liable to misinterpretation Thus it will be seen that the Admiralty were not in a position to issue any definite statement until the Commander-in-Chief's written reports had been received and carefully considered. It should be noted that the careers and professional reputations of three senior officers are at stake, and that hasty generalisations might seriously prejudice their case.
Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel arrived in London p.m. on Thursday, the 15th, and requested by letter reinstatement in their positions in "Royal Oak" or, alternatively, trial by courts-martial. The messenger from the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, was unfortunately, delayed en route, and handed in his despatches at the Admiralty p.m. on Friday, the 16th.
A careful examination of the reports of the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, and the Court of Inquiry has been made, and the Board concur in the action taken by the Commander-in-Chief, in regard to all three officers.
Rear-Admiral Collard has been relieved by order of the Admiralty, and is returning to England.
Certain issues, important from the point of view of discipline, remain, and
the Board of Admiralty have decided, in the interests of the Service, that these matters shall be investigated by courts-martial on the captain and commander respectively. These trials will be convened at Gibraltar as soon as the proper observance of the Regulations will admit, and Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel will proceed to Gibraltar forthwith. It would obviously be impossible to discuss the matter in further detail, pending the decision of the courts-martial to be held at Gibraltar.

Mr. AMMON: Is it possible to inform the House of what exactly was the nature of this serious trouble? The right hon. Gentleman will see, I think, that it is very important when an Admiral is ordered to strike his flag and a flag officer is suspended.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I can, without prejudicing the proceedings at the court-martial.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All that will have to be fought out at the court-martial, and as the House will agree, I am sure, that our chief desire is that justice should be done and fair play given to these three officers, I hope that they will not press me further.

Mr. AMMON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the attitude he is adopting is feeding suspicion and false rumour?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not want, at any rate, to be responsible for creating any suspicion, and, therefore, must adhere to what I have said, and take any blame there may be for not giving any further details.

Mr. ERSKINE: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman cannot even say what the actual charge is?

HON. MEMBERS: Why should he?

Mr. LANSBURY: Why should he not?

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask my right hon. Friend one question? Will the public be informed of the terms of reference to the court-martial before the court-martial takes place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The terms of reference to the court-martial will be, of
course, decided by the convening officer, who in this case will be the Commander-in-Chief. I do not know whether the practice is to communicate them direct at once to the Press or not, but I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the officers be allowed to be represented by King's Counsel?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, if they so wish.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the public, as usual, be admitted to the Court?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to make a short personal explanation. At the commencement of business on Friday, I had a private notice question to the Postmaster-General, and, as he was not here, I took it upon myself to pass certain strictures upon him. I received information afterwards that he was ill. I regret very much the cause of his absence and I unreservedly apologise to him for my innocent mistake, and I hope he accepts that apology.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I accept it without any hesitation whatever. I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite certain that though at times I annoy him, I never willingly would be discourteous to him or to the House. The only thing I will add is that, if I had been actually in my place, the only answer I could have given was that I am not the competent authority to answer the question, which should have been addressed to the Prime Minister.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Home Secretary for what business he proposes to suspend the Eleven o' Clock Rule?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We are asking the House to suspend the Rule in order to obtain the Civil Service Excess, 1926, and a formal Ways and Means Resolution. The Government also hope to get the Rating and Valuation Bill,
Report and Third Reading, and the Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill. If the House is agreeable, I should like also to get the Instruction to the Committee on the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, which will probably receive the support of all sides of the House.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 115.

Division No. 44.1
AYES.
[3.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maltland, sir Arthur D. Steel-


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Malone, Major P. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meller, R. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Aye)


Bennett, A. J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Berry, Sir George
Ganzonl, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsl'Ld.)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Goff, Sir Park
Nuttall, Ellis


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Blundell, F. N.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pitcher, G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hamilton, Sir George
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hammersley, S. S.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Briggs, J. Harold
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raine, Sir Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ramsden, E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remnant, Sir James


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Huntingfleld, Lord
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Looker, Herbert William
Tinne, J. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maclntyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Major Sir George Hennesssy and


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfleld)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
scurr, John


Barr, J
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
MacNeill- Welr, L.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Macpherson. Rt. Hon. James I.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves. T.
Palin, John Henry
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Whiteley.


Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

HOUSING ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend certain provisions in Part. II of the Housing Act, 1925, relating to and improvement reconstruction schemes,"presented by Major Kindersley; supported by Captain Bourne, Mr. Wells, Mr. Dixey, Sir John Power, Mr. Greene, and Mr. Savery; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

RURAL AMENITIES (PETROL STATIONS REGULATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday,30th March, read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn

Orders of the Day — ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

4.0. p.m.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, certain disclosures contained in the Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting civil servants, and other disclosures made subsequently, regarding what is known as the Zinovieff letter, are of national importance and concern and should be made the subject of an inquiry by a body empowered to take evidence on oath, to send for witnesses and papers, and to report.
The Motion deals with what is known as the Zinovieff Letter. The House must remember that it played two distinct and separate parts, and that it must be considered, first of all, in relation to one, and then in relation to the other. The first aspect of this document was a Foreign Office paper handled by the Foreign Office, the subject, first of all, of diplomatic consideration, and, in due course, of diplomatic action. The second aspect of the letter was as the subject of what is generally admitted now to be a political fraud—a fraud perhaps unmatched in its cold calculation and preparation in our political history. As a Foreign Office document and contrary to all—I do not suppose I can call them rules, but certainly to practices and traditions—it became the subject of hot political controversy. The point that was raised, both by candidates and by the newspapers that supported them, was that I had had this letter in my hands for a considerable period of time and that, with that letter in my hands, I had deliberately decided that nothing was to be done with it, because its treatment and publication were to have a political influence and were to affect the result of the General Election. That was the accusation made against me by scores of Members on the other side. Lord Curzon, who was my predecessor in office, was good enough to state quite categorically that I had had that letter in my hands for a month. Lord Birkenhead was a little more generous. Lord Birkenhead said that I had had it for three weeks. The Prime Minister and a few others were still a little more generous. They suggested that I had had it at least a fortnight, that I had sat upon it, that
I had kept it in the dark, and that, deliberately and of design, I, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, decided to treat that document, not as a national servant, but as a Party Leader, and to suppress it from publication. That was their accusation, the Prime Minister, as I say, being the most generous in suggesting that I had had it for a fortnight.
When the accusation was made, I was not in a position to reply, because I had not the information in my hands. As soon as I got the information, I gave the dates. I gave the dates at a meeting at Cardiff, and those dates have stood the test of all examination and all publication. I would like to remind the House that they are contained in the Report of the Treasury Committee that examined the Francs Case, but in order that the House may have a wider view, because a wider view is necessary for our Debate to-day, I will give a date or two that is not in the Treasury, Report. The Government was defeated on the 8th October, and the letter came into the hands of the Foreign Office on the 10th October. That was the first time that the Foreign Office knew of the existence of the letter. The 10th October was a Friday. Inquiries began to be pursued regarding the letter on the 11th. Sunday intervened, and it was not until the 13th that the responsible official at the Foreign Office made up his mind that he should regard the letter as a "live affair." On the morning of the 13th, I left London, and on the evening of the 13th, I spoke in Glasgow. Hon. Members can find their references in any newspaper published at the time. It was not until the next morning that the letter was registered in the Foreign Office, and it was not until the morning of the 14th, nearly 24 hours after I had left London, that it was decided that the letter was of such a nature as to be ultimately communicated to me—not at the moment, not at the time; not to be communicated to me on the 14th, but ultimately to be communicated to me. Where is the fortnight?
I started the journey south from Glasgow. On the 15th, I arrived in the Manchester area, and after an exceedingly heavy day, speaking all day long, I found the place where I was to spend the night very late that night, and in that place I found several dispatch bags
from the Foreign Office. And among the business, without any distinction, among the ordinary business, I discovered this letter on the 15th, either that night before 12 o'clock, or the next morning after midnight, and before I went to bed I dealt with this letter. I dealt with it without any prevarication and without any delay. I said that that letter, assuming that it was authentic and that its authenticity was proved, ought to be dealt with definitely, decisively and without any shilly-shallying. I minuted it for publication. Publication was minuted then, because at that time, as subsequently, there were two views as to how Russian affairs were to be handled. One view was that we should just allow our grievances against Russia to accumulate and that we should pigeon-hole them, as it were, in our hearts and in our recollection. No action to be taken—it was a very comical method, but it was the method pursued by the Government of hon. Members opposite—no communication, no publication, no definite and precise handling at the time. The other view was that every time there was a breach of proper, just, reasonable diplomatic relations in the action of the Moscow Government with us, it should be made the subject of a definite representation—that was my own view—and that, following the representation, as soon as the negotiations had been completed, as soon as the incident was finished by having gone through the whole of these stages, the negotiations should be published.
A few more dates. The date on which the letter was registered was the 14th. It reached me on the 16th. My handling of it went back to the Foreign Office on the 16th with instructions, and it was returned to me, with certain instructions that I had written on the 15th or the 18th, to Port Talbot, where it arrived on the 21st. On the 21st I was away. I had gone into the Midlands. I returned to Port Talbot late on the 22nd or early on the 23rd. On the 23rd, I dealt with the document lain, but, from the nature of my dealing with it, it did not appear to me to be strong enough or pointed enough to meet the circumstances. Therefore, I sent it back, and it reached the Foreign Office on the 24th; that was a Friday, and on the night of that day it was published. I gave those essential dates at Cardiff, and I am not, therefore,
giving them for the first time. To this day, there never has been a withdrawal of the accusation by any of those who made it, with the exception of what might have been regarded as a withdrawal, made, I think, in January, 1925, by the present Foreign Secretary, who said that if he had had the handling of the document he could not have done it otherwise than as I did. But that was after the event was over.
What has happened as a result of all this? There was no change in the policy of the Foreign Office. The publication on the Friday night was done in order to protect the Foreign Office from the attack that it knew was to be made, the political attack which it knew was to be made upon it through the "Daily Mail" and other newspapers next morning. It was done on the expectation that as soon as the definite proof was given of the way in which the matter had been dealt with at the Foreign Office, the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, to their party, to their candidates, and to the electors, had made the statement that we were handling that letter in order to suppress it, would withdraw. As soon as proof was given to the country that so far from that being the fact, the letter was being handled with an energy in relation to time, and an energy in relation to ideas with which documents of the kind had probably never been handled before in the Foreign Office, the expectation was that the statements about our sitting upon the document for a month or three weeks or a, fortnight would be immediately withdrawn. The expectation was rather an innocent one, and those who took the view that it was an innocent one were fully justified by the way in which right hon. Gentlemen opposite responded when the facts were known after my speech at Cardiff.
Moreover, Lord Curzon and the others said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), who was then Home Secretary, had had that letter circulated; that he knew all about it and that he, also, was sitting upon it, aiding and abetting me in our policy of suppression. It is known perfectly well that that document could not be circulated as a Cabinet paper. Under the circumstances, no Cabinet meeting was held and no circulation of Cabinet papers was possible. The circulation that took place was not a circulation between political
Departments, but circulation between the Intelligence Sub-Departments of the various big offices concerned with the subject. Still, not a word of explanation and not a word of apology! There was a misunderstanding about the despatch of the Note on the Friday night. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said so. That misunderstanding, if the case had been honourably dealt with on the platform and in the newspapers, was purely a domestic matter and had no political significance whatever. It was a misunderstanding in the sphere of judgment and never in the sphere of loyalty either to the officer's chief or to his position as a servant of the nation. That misunderstanding, most unfortunately, owing to the way in which the hue and cry was used at the time, appeared as a very essential political issue.
That is the Foreign Office side. That is the history of the document as a State document being handled at the Foreign Office. The dates which I have given completely disprove and dispose, I hope for ever, of the great argument and the great stunt that hon. Members opposite used so liberally during that week and the following days before the Election, and to which they owe to a very large extent their success at the polls.
Another aspect of the letter is its aspect as a political weapon, as the powder, if we might so express ourselves, for a political explosion—a Guy Fawkes sort of arrangement which came off. Again, there are one or two facts which the House is bound to keep its mind upon in order to understand the situation. Our Russian policy at the time was being hotly attacked. To that we never objected, but no controversy of our time has enlisted the services of a greater number of blackguards than the Russian controversy. Documents were flying about like leaves, and, in refreshing my memory, as I have been during the last week, with some letters, memoranda and notes that I have under very careful lock and key, I was amazed to discover the number of photographs of forged documents which I have had come into my possession from time to time, and the forgery of which was so plain on the face of them—I confine myself to that limited statement—
that they had been detected after—mark you, not detected before anything happened, but detected after a more or less lengthy run to compensate the pains of those who had been to the trouble to set them into circulation. Moreover, during the last few months there have been cases in Berlin and Paris which prove conclusively that every European Government in those days was being inundated with forged documents, and there was a recent case in America which shows that the American Government officials were also imposed upon in the same way. Hon. Members have got to keep that in their minds. That is one of the factors.
The second point is this. No one has ever seen the original of that letter. I have come across no one who has alleged that he has seen the original of that letter, and, therefore, the ordinary means of detecting forgeries, similarities of handwriting and so on, do not exist as far as this letter is concerned. Proofs of authenticity or otherwise are almost impossible to get in relation to this letter. Then, on the third point, more than one copy of this letter simultaneously appeared. There was one copy that went to the Foreign Office. The late editor of the "Daily Mail" confessed to having had two copies sent to him from independent sources, and there is very good reason for believing that one copy went to the Conservative headquarters by the middle, or even the beginning of that week, and was acted upon. In any event, Fleet Street during the week was in possession of the news of the existence of the thing, and on the 23rd the "Daily Mirror" had a paragraph on the coming bombshell, naming Zinovieff and a letter written by him as being something that was to be sprung upon the Labour Government before the Election came on. In at least two provincial papers the London Letter contained a reference to the coming bombshell, and at least in one other case a journalist stated that journalists were invited to come to the Conservative headquarters on the Tuesday, and were informed that they should keep themselves ready for something that was going to happen at the week-end.
Then there is the other circumstance. I hope hon. Members will keep vary clearly in their minds that when this letter appeared, there were two major
falsehoods told about it by those who published them. The first falsehood was as to when it reached the Foreign Office. That falsehood was only possible because they carefully refrained from asking the Foreign Office when it did get the letter. They preferred to speculate, because by speculating they could impose their fraud more easily upon the public of this country. The second major falsehood is as to what was being done about it. Again, hon. Members must, in all fairness and justice, admit that when this letter came into the hands of those who published it, the very last thing that they desired to do was to find out anything about the letter, either whether it was authentic, or when it came into the hands of the Government, or what action the Government were taking about it. They preferred to tell their own story, and to manufacture the story out of their own malicious imagination.
Therefore, the conclusion is this. It was a deliberately planned and devised concoction of deceit, fitted artfully for the purpose of deceiving the public and to influence the Election. That it played a major part in deciding the verdict, no one would deny. That it was a fraudulent one, few would dare to deny. The Government cannot content themselves by saying, "Oh, well, the public have been imposed upon before. The best way to cure the public of being imposed upon is to leave the public to experience the evil consequences of their actions, while in a state of being imposed upon." And they are evidently doing their very best to enlighten the public in that respect. They cannot go on saying, "It is the public's look-out; we have benefited by it, and we have no further interest in it." They cannot reasonably and justly say that. We are all guilty, I dare say, of stepping over marks in the heat and in the rough-and-tumble of elections. Yes, but this is not that. This is something quite different. This kind of thing at an election belongs to a totally different category of action. This is a case of a successful conspiracy of a few people, some of them foreigners, including the controllers of own own newspapers, to influence the public mind, possibly by forgery, certainly by fraud, and to have this House of Commons elected in proportions that would have been very different but for that fraud.
We pass Orders at the beginning of every Session protecting ourselves against influences which we consider ought not to be exercised against us, laying down the rights and privileges of the House of Commons in this, that and the other respect. That Governments, however, can be elected by means such as these is the greatest blow struck at democratic election in our time. The people require safeguarding. People require safeguarding by an exposure of how fraud was committed upon them—how it was done. Not only the people, but this House itself requires safeguarding in exactly the same sort of way. If these illegitimate influences, now so well known and so well exposed, are to be treated as trivial, simply because they return a majority of Members to this House, what is going to be the position of our public life? If the present Government to-day, in spite of the benefits they have received by it, are going to get up and say in substance—I do not care what words they use, if they refuse this inquiry to-day—that it is perfectly legitimate that three or four men may use fraud and forgery during the last few days of an election—I say that if a few foreigners, a few editors of discredited newspapers, newspapers of Pekin massacres, lay their heads together and deliberately start a story such as I have recited to-day, and the Government have got nothing to say about it, then it is one of the greatest blows to the liberty of election in this country that this House has ever examined and rejected.
That is not all. It is all the worse that it was the Foreign Office which was attacked. The Foreign Secretary is supposed to be a person who is protected against the ordinary rough-and-tumble fights in our partisan politics, and it is very good that he should be. It is very largely a matter of national necessity that the Foreign Secretary, while criticised, and while different points of view should be brought to bear upon his actions and his policy—while all that should be done, it is perfectly right that the Foreign Secretary, both in the country and in the House of Commons, ought to be regarded as occupying a specially protected position. What is the claim here? The claim is that while these negotiations were going on, while the handling of this letter was being proceeded
with, while the affair was being dealt with, publication should have taken place, and because the publication did not take place then, all sorts of sinister influences and sinister intentions were attributed to those responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. I say it is an impertinent claim on the part of any editor that a spy, or a friend, or a friend of a friend, or anyone in possession of documents, is doing patriotic duty in forcing the hand of Foreign Office officials instead of allowing them to study, without any disturbance of mind, what are the real national interests. From this narrow but extremely important point of view, this affair is doubly dangerous. It is a deplorable innovation upon which the Government are called to take action by instituting an inquiry into the whole circumstances in which it originated and became successful. Russia in 1924; who may it be in 1929? Germany, France, America? They are nations with whom we are in diplomatic relations, and, if those relations were handled in the same way as those people handled that Red Letter, creating that political stunt, they would bring about a condition which would very much worsen our relations with those countries and perhaps prevent the spread and establishment of goodwill between us.
Further, around this affair a perfect forest of suspicion, rumours, and tales have grown up, and some of them have shaken public confidence in the Civil Service. If they are to die out very well, but they are not going to die out. Make no mistake about that. They are not going to die out until they are settled, and settled in exactly the same way as the Treasury Committee settled the position created after the law case relating to the francs. In the national interest, they must be sifted, and we must have a Report from a Committee explaining the whole situation. In the Report of the Treasury Committee, certain references were made to this letter. The references were widened in Part III. I am not at all sorry, although Part III did not deal and could not deal fully with the whole question from the national point of view. But immediately after that a letter appeared in a Sunday newspaper from the editor of the newspaper which was responsible primarily for the stunt and the imposition upon the public. His
explanations of what he did are tantamount to an accusation against the public service. There was, according to him, an old and trusted friend of his who telephoned to him that there was a document in London which he ought to have, and he was able to inform him that "the Prime Minister knows all about it and is trying to avoid publication." He said that it had been circulated by the Foreign Office to the Home Office, the Admiralty and the War Office. If that be true, that information came from inside. Are the Government going to allow it to remain there?
That is not all. This gentleman says that when he heard that the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Admiralty and the War Office—may I say, parenthetically, in order that there may be no misunderstanding that these were not the political Departments of the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Admiralty, or the War Office, but the Intelligence Departments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Worse still!"] No, it is not. It is not fair that the two functions of these offices should be mixed up and that the assumption should be made that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) who got the letter and saw it. It was nothing of the kind. It was the heads of the Intelligence Departments, and I say that the heads of the Intelligence Departments who received that letter thought it was such nonsense that they described it to me later as "blank"—hon. Members can supply the adjective themselves—tripe. "The problem that was put to me," says this late editor, when he knew that these four Departments had the letter, "was a comparatively simple one"—that is to get a copy of the letter. "The last sentence of the message was almost a solution of it." That, again, is an accusation against these four Departments.
This gentleman says this,, not in conversation when it might be loosely and dramatically expressed, perhaps reported again with additions and trimmings, not in the hot blood of the election or on a platform, but sitting at his own desk writing a document which he knows is going to be published and which he is certain will create a considerable amount of interest. Therefore, the sentence is not a loose one, and is not uttered without consideration.
But the effect of this sentence is that, in accordance with his experience, he knew that if a document passed into any one of these four offices it was a perfectly simple thing for him to get a copy of it. He had another friend, a friend who knew about the letter, and this friend came to see him and said that he was disposed to be indignant at the Government's reluctance to allow publication. It is wonderful how all the friends were wrong in the most essential part; and this is very significant. I have it here, and it is as good evidence as I have heard produced to support a much more serious accusation than this. But doing a little bit of constructive work, the curious thing is that all these gentlemen say—I have not said believe—that the Government were doing their best to suppress the evidence,, telling the same story, and so showing quite conclusively that their only purpose was a political stunt. The last sentence:
He came to see me, and he was disposed to be indignant at the Government's reluctance to allow publication, but did not think he could help me to get a copy of it.
What does that indicate? "He did not think he could help me to get a copy of it." Was that friend a member of the Civil Service? I think we had better know. It is perfectly certain that this peculiar form of words describes far more the position of a man who is in an official position and either has a copy himself by virtue of that position, or knows people who by virtue of that position have a copy of it, than any other type of man who could have been carrying on that conversation:
I insisted that I must have it, and at length he promised that if he could obtain the approval of a third person he would send me a copy through the post.
Can any form of words be more suspicious of an illegitimate transaction than this? That is not all. Another person came along half-an-hour after, and he had the thing in his pocket, and what he wanted was:
My advice as to the best method of publication.
What an innocent man he must have been to go to this gentleman who had published more rubbish than anyone else in the course of 10 or 12 years, more lies, more things of the type of the bloodcurdling description of the Pekin
Massacres! He goes to this gentleman and asks him for advice as to how he could get it published. He knew perfectly well what he was doing, and that he was going to the place where he would get it published. It is of the greatest importance to the free public life of this country that we should know who these various gentlemen are and how they came into possession of the document. In the end, he got his two documents. There is a clear indication, if this story be true, and I lay emphasis upon that—it is our duty to assume that it may be true, not by way of making an accusation, but by way of establishing a case for proper inquiry—that there is a systematic leakage of important State documents to certain newspapers from public offices.
That is the grave charge that is made here. We have had several leakages recently. I heard the Prime Minister the other day fencing with questions about rubber. Everybody knew his difficulty; at any rate everybody suspected his difficulty. How long is this going to go on? The point here is that if that kind of thing which I experienced during those four days of that week-end, when I was deprived of essential information, which, in spite of all my efforts, I could not get, is going to be resorted to in our future electoral fights, we had better know in order that Departments may be ready to meet that kind of warfare, which, thank goodness, has not yet made itself conspicuous in the public life of this country. If these statements mean anything, they mean that if Labour came into office again, people inside the Departments would carry to its opponents' newspapers information to be used for political purposes. I want there to be no doubt about it.
The position has gone so far that it demands an inquiry, and therefore we would like to know how the letter came into the country, into whose hands it went, and who gave it to this newspaper? Fill in the names and details in an appendix to the statement which appears in the Sunday newspaper. Who was the old and trusted friend? Who was the friend who came and said he had a friend who could give him authority to hand over this paper Who was the friend who had the paper in his pocket—British or foreign? If it is not possible to establish anything more than that, it
would be interesting. Who handled it? What happened to it in the Government Departments to which it was sent? These are plain questions, which I hope the Prime Minister is anxious to get answered. It is because I assume that he is anxious to have an answer to them, although he has been a very great beneficiary under the circumstances which gave rise to them, that I move the Motion which stands in my name.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): At breakfast this morning, on taking up my "Daily Herald," my eye was caught by a headline, "Red Letter Day." I said, "Whose Red Letter Day?" In this discussion, it is very important to remember the lesson that I remember being taught many years ago by a most admirable schoolmaster, "You must never write history in the light of after events." I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been a little coloured, not unnaturally, by the fact that he has read a certain amount into contemporary history of what happened afterwards. To get a clear perspective of this case, which deserves close and careful examination, it is of considerable importance to put ourselves back, first of all, into the first weeks of October of 1924. Parliament had just been dissolved; the country was just entering upon a General Election. Two events had occurred quite recently which had perturbed the country a good deal and shattered the faith of a great many of the electors that the then Labour Government could handle difficult situations with firmness and with some continuity of purpose, and the two cases were the Campbell case and the Russian Treaty.
If investigations are to be held, no investigation will be more interesting than one into the Campbell case, unless it were an investigation to show why the terms of the Russian Treaty were altered after declarations had been made beforehand that no such alteration would be made. Campbell was arrested on 5th August, and on 6th August he appeared at Bow Street, and was remanded for a week. During the day that he appeared at Bow Street the Communist party circularised all the
Labour Members of Parliament, urging on them that the proceedings must be abandoned.

HON. MEMBERS: That is not true.

The PRIME MINISTER: Everyone will be at liberty to put his views to the House later. On the 13th, Campbell came up again at Bow Street. No evidence was offered by the Crown and he was discharged, and the next morning, in the "Daily Herald," there appeared this, published by the Political Bureau of the Communist party:
The withdrawal of the charge was made on the sole responsibility of the Labour Government, under severe pressure from such well-known Members of Parliament as George Lansbury, who had volunteered to give evidence on Campbell's defence of justification, James Maxton, A. A. Purcell, John Scurr, and many others.
That was an event which had made hon. Members on the Opposition Benches apprehensive that the extreme wing of the Labour movement was controlling the Government. That was quickly followed by the Russian Treaty. In June the then Prime Minister had stated that there would be no question of a loan to Russia. In August, when the Treaty, after negotiations had been broken off, was brought before this House, it contained a Clause which guaranteed the interest and sinking fund by British taxpayers of loans to be raised by the Soviet Government. That, again, caused considerable apprehension, not only as to the prospective burden which it was liable to place on British taxpayers, but because it was widely felt that the same influences which had been at work in the Campbell case had been at work in the matter of the Russian Treaty. It was with those two events fresh in people's minds, with the election turning largely on the handling of the Russian question and the power of the extremist section in the Labour party, that the election began, and by the day that the letter and despatch were published—the documents of which we have been speaking to-day—that election, so far as the Labour Government was concerned, was already lost.
I would like to dwell for a few moments, as the Leader of the Opposition did, on the question of whether this letter was genuine or not. The Labour Government had an inquiry, and could not make up their minds, and very honestly said so. They were complete agnostics;
they did not know whether it was a revelation or not. When our Government came in, as was explained very fully by the Foreign Secretary on 15th December, 1924, during the Debate on the Address, we began by setting up a Committee, which comprised an unusual number of men familiar with dealing with all kinds of evidence. The Committee contained a Lord Chancellor, an ex-Lord Chancellor, two former Foreign Secretaries, and Lord Cecil, himself a barrister of no mean attainments. The result of their investigations was that they were convinced that the letter was genuine. The Foreign Office, I think, obviously believed that it was genuine. But you have some very interesting evidence, some in this country and some abroad, to which it is worth giving a minute or two's consideration. Lord Haldane said at Reading, during the election:
For myself I think the Foreign Office have done right in treating the document as, on the balance, not being a forgery but being a genuine document. It may be so. On the balance of evidence the Foreign Office are bound to assume that it is so, and that is the line apparently taken by the Prime Minister himself in his speech at Cardiff this afternoon.
I shall have a word to say on that speech by and by. But I want the House to know this: There was nothing new in the so-called Zinovieff letter. It embodied teachings with which we were all familiar, in reports of speeches from Russia, in articles in the Press; and there had broken out all over Europe at that time similar documents——[Interruption.] Yes, but the curious feature is this, and perhaps hon. Members opposite have forgotten it—that in no other country but this did the Soviet authorities say that the documents were forgeries.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sorry to interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman has just made the statement that in no other country did the Soviet Government deny it. Is he aware that they not only denied the authorship but asked for a prosecution in France?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish that we should misunderstand each other. There were so many documents lying about Europe. Perhaps what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, and I take it from him. But the line of
attack, by corrupting the loyalty and discipline of troops, which was one of the principal things recommended in the Zinovieff letter, is what had gone on from before that time and during that time, and is going on still. It was for that that the "Workers' Weekly" was prosecuted in the Campbell case. Leaflets of the kind I have mentioned were given to the troops when they went to China. They have been given to the troops in China, bearing the sickle and hammer, showing the mark of their origin. There were some cases, the House will remember, in the Autumn of 1925, when several men were sent to prison for the same reason, There is a case going on in Scotland now for the same cause.
Let me just remind the House of this. When the letter came to England, what was the reaction in Moscow? According to our evidence Moscow was for a moment in a state of panic. Why? Because the Russians could not make out whether the Zinovieff letter had been sent from Moscow by someone who had betrayed the Russian Communists, or whether they had been betrayed by an English Communist in London. On the evening of 24th October, M. Rakovsky telegraphed, not in cypher, to Moscow, the contents of the document, and I think also the despatch. Immediately after that, according to information which we have, M. Tchitcherin told his colleagues that he had questioned Zinovieff concerning the letter. Zinovieff admitted that the letter had been sent to the Communist party, but he was at a loss to know how the British Government had got a copy of it. He presumed that the leakage was due to treachery either in Moscow or in London. The text of the document, he said, was in some places slightly mutilated, but M. Tchitcherin said that it would be impossible to accuse the British Government of having mutilated the document, because that would be equivalent to a confession of authenticity. The only course they could take was, at once, to denounce it as forgery.
The evidence I am not going to disclose, but I have the consent of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, if the Leader of the Opposition, who has held the Office of Prime Minister, desires to see it, it is at his disposal. About a month later, Tchitcherin told his
colleagues that after the Communist party in England had received the original it had been destroyed by a gentleman named Mr. Inkpin. This, Mr. Tchitcherin said, will enable our Government—that is the Soviet Government—to insist on an investigation into the matter, because no actual copy had ever been produced. It is interesting to observe that Tchitcherin took his colleagues into his confidence again this March, alter the holding of the Francs Case Inquiry and before Mr. Marlowe's letter. He was then inclined to think that the leakage had occurred in London, and, like hon. Members opposite, he is strongly in favour of holding an inquiry. Tie added that they were on safe ground concerning the Communist International, since the Soviet Government always publicly dissociated themselves from their activities.
So much for what took place in Moscow. There is only one other circumstance which to my mind is one of the most interesting facts, suggesting that they, at any rate, believed in the authenticity of this letter and it is this: Not very long after the Zinovieff letter appeared in England, a Russian in Moscow was apprehended by the Soviet Government. They had every reason, I understand, to believe that he was connected with the giving away of a copy of that letter and he was shot on that account. The right hon. Gentleman made some observation about forgeries. I understood, diligent reader of the papers as I am, that we were to be confronted to-day with an affidavit from someone who is going to swear that he had forged the Zinovieff letter. Perhaps that is coming, but if hon. Members opposite can produce one on those Benches, he will indeed join a gallant crowd. I have several names of those who have a prior right to claim that honour, and I think it will interest the House to learn them. Druzhilovsky, Zhemtchevzhnikov, Pantziurkovsky, Bernstein alias Henry Lawrence, alias Lorenzo and Shreck. Each of them has provided a most circumstantial story as to how he forged that letter. So much for whether the Zinovieff letter is genuine or not. Hon. Members opposite, I imagine, will continue to believe that it is not, but the question of whether it is or is not matters a great deal as I shall show in a minute. The point I was going to ask at this
moment was—did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party mean to publish the letter and the dispatch or not?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am perfectly certain the Prime Minister has had access to the minutes. Publication, certainly, when the negotiations were completed. Does the right hon. Gentleman accuse me of withholding—[interruption.]

The PRIME MINISTER: In the circumstances, it is a matter of great importance whether publication was made, so that the people of this country might know the kind of campaign Russia was carrying on at the moment when we were proposing to lend her money.

Mr. MacDONALD: Is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that when. I used the word "publication," I did it for the purpose of covering an intention to withhold it from the public? Has he been informed that. as a matter of fact I intended to publish as soon as the dossier was complete?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I imagine the right hon. Gentleman said he meant to publish. I imagine he would have given his consent to publication by the Monday or Tuesday. He would not have held it longer than that, because, I am sure he would not have desired the Election to proceed to the end without the country knowing these circumstances that had occurred. This really is a rather important point. If the right hon. Gentleman was not proposing to publish it, then of course it would be a very serious thing. If he was proposing not to publish it, so as to conceal the truth, it would be to use a phrase which he uses very often, "a fraud on the English people." As he was going to publish it, I have the greater difficulty in seeing what his grievance is in the anticipating of this publication by a matter of a few days. Hon. Members have allowed themselves to get so prejudiced in this matter that they find it very difficult to throw themselves back to the period when this publication was made. When I first saw the publication of the letter and the despatch which appeared together—I think on the Saturday morning—the first thing I thought was, "Thank goodness the Prime Minister at last is showing backbone." If the Prime Minister had stuck to that line and followed it up with a
powerful speech on the lines of that despatch, I believe he might easily have saved a very large number of seats. But when he spoke at Cardiff on the Tues-day——

Mr. MacDONALD: On the Monday afternoon.

5.0 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER: Then he dissipated altogether the ideas which I had formed about him. I read that speech with great care and I was unable to make anything of it. I have had recourse in my difficulty to one who could form a far better judgment than I of what words mean, because he had greater experience and that is Mr. Asquith as he was then. I looked up to see what he said of that Cardiff speech and he said he could not remember to have read a more distracted, incoherent, unilluminating statement in the whole of his political life. He said:
The Prime Minister was full of indignation. He talked a great deal about mares' nests and red herrings and red plots, but what was it all about? Until Saturday morning the whole world was in the same state of ignorance as to the existence of any such letter, be it genuine or forged, as Mr. Ramsay MacDonald seems to have kept the members of his own Cabinet.
He had a good deal more to say about it, but I will only give one more extract. He observed that the Prime Minister, as he then was, said:
I have no doubt Russia will carry out the treaties with her.
Mr. Asquith said that was
throwing dust in the eyes of the electors, and I make no further comment upon it.
He added:
I want to make it perfectly clear that we"—
that is, the Liberals—
at any rate who are fair-minded critics. … are profoundly dissatisfied and more than dissatisfied. We feel humiliated. It is a humiliation to our public life that an incident of that kind should have been possible.
I have tried to illustrate the position in the country at that time to show where the anxieties of the electors were and how essential it was for them that they should know the whole truth up to date. What, after all, is to be the subject of the inquiry which we are asked to consider? According to the Motion, it is to inquire into disclosures contained in the Civil Service Report, and subsequent
disclosures concerning the letter. Under the first head, I do not think there is really anything except certain facts which have been obtained from a statement made by a former servant of a Mrs. Dyne, as to fragments of conversation overheard while in her service. The Leaders of the party opposite, I believe, attach very little importance to that themselves. It has been examined, fully investigated, and reported upon by the Fisher Committee, and they say in paragraph 53:
We are satisfied that there is not the slightest foundation for any of the suspicions. which have in our opinion most unjustly attached to Mr. Gregory in connection with the events of 24th and 25th October, 1924, and we beg to report accordingly.
I think no more need, be said about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I do not think the Leader of the Opposition made any reference to that case in his speech. It is made the peg on which to hang this discussion—a rusty peg, but still a peg—and when I was asked to find time for such a discussion, I immediately said I would because I think discussions on the subject of Zinovieff and his letter are always interesting and can never fail to do good. I have heard one or two hon. Members opposite say, and I know the right hon. Gentleman himself has either said or written it recently, that it is a matter of indifference whether the Zinovieff letter be a forgery or not. To my mind, that is of capital importance, because, if it be a forgery, then there is a case of gross fraud in publishing it. If it be a genuine letter, the whole situation is entirely different and publication might become a public service. It cannot be wrong to tell the electorate the truth, provided that that truth is not obtained in an illegitimate manner. What new facts have come to light in what is now known as the Marlowe letter?
It was always known that the "Daily Mail" had a copy of this letter. We now know that they had two copies. I do not think there is very much in that. As for the information, where the right hon. Gentleman said it was tantamount to an accusation against the public service, remember this: Mr. Marlowe is an honourable man and a great journalist, but he is at present in the South of France, he is away from all his works of reference, he is speaking of events which happened three and a half years
ago, and I have never yet known newspaper men, with all their virtues, who were anxious to belittle the importance of their calling. And mark, that the information of which he speaks and which the right hon. Gentleman considered so confidential, was entirely wrong on the subject of date, and as to any question of circulation of such a kind, the wording is of a very misleading nature, although the right hon. Gentleman put in an explanation, evidently seeing that I should at once put my finger on this. Anyone who has ever had any time in any branch of the Service, and in many places in the Forces, and who has served as I say, at any time, is perfectly familiar with the procedure in these cases, and there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that a communication of that kind was made or need necessarily be made by anyone connected with the public service.
We are speaking so much in this House as though we were discussing a British State document. We are discussing a document sent from Moscow to the British Communist party, and anyone who knew of its existence was perfectly at liberty to go to the Press. Why should not he? Is there anything fraudulent about it, or is there anything in the nature of a conspiracy about it? There was a wider circulation than hon. Members realised. It was on the 10th October that this letter had already been discussed by the executive of the Communist party. You do not suppose they all hold their tongues. When men are traitors—

Mr. MAXTON: This is rather an important matter if the proper course of the Debate is to be followed. Will the right hon. Gentleman give something to support the very categorical statement that the Communist party executive had already discussed it? It is not enough in a case like this merely to make statements of that sort.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, that I will not do. I will add this: If history has taught me anything, it has taught me that when men are traitors to their own country, they will be traitors to one another. The form of inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman wants is one by which we can find out how the "Daily Mail" got the document
Remember, it was not an official secret, it was not the property of His Majesty's Government, it did not emanate from the Civil Service—that, he has said himself—and it was a document the publication of which, in my view, was a public duty, provided that it was obtained by honourable means. At this point the not unnatural question occurs to me, Why did not the Prime Minister in October, 1924, send for Mr. Marlowe at once, instead of waiting three and a half years to ask for this inquiry?

Mr. THOMAS: The Prime Minister has just made a statement and asked a question. [Interruption.] I want to ask the Prime Minister, Before he made that statement, was he not aware that Mr. Marlowe was sent for?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was not, and I am very glad to hear it. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members on my left bring forward a Motion, and then they decline to hear the reply.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: A series of lying statements!

HON. MEMBERS: Name!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made use of an expression which cannot be permitted in this House. I must call upon him to withdraw it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I willingly withdraw because I believe that what I said was correct.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. WILLIAMS: I refrain. I refuse to withdraw it, because I believe it is correct.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw from the House.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a very interesting fact that the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has just given us, and it would be interesting to know what Mr. Marlowe said.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman just said Mr. Marlowe was not called upon, but now he says what he said when he was called upon.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order at all.

The PRIME MINISTER: There would have been, so far as I know, no inherent difficulty in the Labour Government having set up an inquiry before they left office, but they did not do so, and threeand-a-half years afterwards they are asking us to do so, on such grounds as the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. Now let me put to the House of Commons one or two practical difficulties. There is nothing perhaps in this country by which our people set greater store than the freedom of the Press. It is, like all forms of freedom, extraordinarily difficult to know, if you are going to interfere with it, where you are going to interfere and where you are going to stop. In this country we have generally taken the line of allowing them complete freedom, and, generally speaking, that confidence has been justified. But in that great profession of journalism are certain principles to which all journalists hold, more closely perhaps than we can imagine in other walks of life. It is looked on as the one thing that cannot be done to betray the confidence of anyone who has given them information. I know myself the difficulty that sometimes arises. Things have got out into the Press which I would much rather did not. I have no means of finding out how they have got there.
If Mr. Marlowe—and he is the only person from whom we can get the information—is sent for before a Committee of any kind, and you put a question to him, and he refuses to answer, what can you do? You may commit him to the Clock Tower, if it be a Parliamentary Committee, and there are certain circumstances, if you stretched your powers, by which you might commit him to prison, probably in the second division; and you would wait for a time, a week, a fortnight or a month, and supposing he still refused to say anything—[An HON. MEMBER: "Leave him there!"]—if you tried to do that, in the first place, you would find that you had made yourself a laughing-stock, and, in the second place, you would have public opinion mobilised against you. You must remember this: If in the Press any escape of a document at any time puts the national State in danger, then indeed a Government can
proceed by every means in its power and will have behind it the support of the whole country and of the whole Press, but in this case no British secret has been betrayed, no disservice to the nation has been done; and the Government refuse to lend themselves to an inquiry which can serve no national end and is foredoomed by its very nature to futility. In fact, in a position of this kind, the only source of information that you can get is not from the Press; it is from the man who gave it to the Press. He is free to speak; the Press are not.
Now, within the last 48 hours, there has come to my notice a statement from the gentleman who gave the first information to Mr. Marlowe which Mr. Marlowe received. I agree with Mr. Tchitcherin. I always felt that the leak occurred in London, and not in official circles. I never thought there was a conspiracy; I never thought there was fraud. I felt that the belief in these things had grown up subsequently to the last General Election by considering the history of that time in the light of after events. The information was obtained in London. It was obtained ultimately from the Communist. party. It was possessed by a gentleman unconnected with office and politics, or with any of those things which make a conspiracy—a man in the City; and it was possessed by him and known of 48 hours before the document reached the Government, and known in detail 24 hours before; and he has made a statement, which I have had checked and verified as far as I have been able, in the course of the last 48 hours. I met him three hours ago; I have never seen him before or heard his name, and he has authorised me to read his statement to the House of Commons, which I propose to do. I will say, before I read it, that it is the statement of an honest and a patriotic man, and that I think the action of the "Daily Mail" was the action of a patriotic newspaper. This is the statement:
In view of the attacks which have been made by the Labour party and others against the Army and Navy and Civil Services with regard to the communication to the Press of the Zinovieff letter, and having been released from a pledge of secrecy which I gave at the time to my informant, I am now in a position to place you in possession of the whole of the facts which have been known to me from the very beginning.
On the afternoon of 8th October, 1924, at about 6 p.m., I met in London on business matters a gentleman with whom I had had business transactions in the past, and who was, as I knew, in close touch with Communist circles in this country. I may say at once that this gentleman was not, and never had been a British official, nor had he ever been, so far as I am aware, either employed by or connected with any British Government Service.
At the conclusion of our business conversation he mentioned to me the fact that he had learnt of the arrival in this country of an extraordinary letter from Moscow, a letter which had been sent to British Communist Headquarters by an individual called Zinovieff, whom he knew as 'Apfelbaum'. From his description of the contents of this letter, I saw at once that the matter was serious, and in view of the incitements to sedition contained in it, I asked him if he could obtain for me the complete text of it. He said 'Yes,' and gave me the complete text at approximately 9.30 a.m. on the following day, 9th October.
On reading the letter, I was very indignant to find that at the time when the Labour Government was proposing to lend good British money to Moscow, as part of a treaty which they had actually negotiated, Moscow was at that very moment engaged in fomenting sedition and revolution here. I was particularly incensed by their plans for conducting subversive propaganda in the Navy and Army.
I thereupon decided to do two things:

(i) To bring the facts to the notice of the Government Department mainly concerned, which I did; and
(ii) To communicate this information to the electorate of this country through the Press, as soon as my informant was able to settle his affairs here, and to get to a place of safety, for he assured me that his life would be in danger.

When the necessary arrangements for the safety of my informant had been made, I handed my copy of the letter, not to the 'Daily Mail' direct, but to a trusted City friend whom I knew to be in close touch with that newspaper, and requested him to arrange for its publication.
I would certainly do again in similar circumstances what I did then, and am only too glad to think that I have been instrumental in placing the electorate in possession of the whole of the facts before they supported a policy of lending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to the country which was at that very moment engaged in fostering sedition in this country.
I would add that at no time did I obtain any information whatsoever with regard to the letter or its contents from any official source, and that from first to last I was solely responsible both for obtaining the text of the letter and securing its subsequent publication in the 'Daily Mail.' At no stage in these transactions did I receive any assistance from anyone employed in
any capacity in any Government Department. I need hardly say that my action in this matter was dictated solely by patriotic motives and that at no time did I receive any payment or any other reward therefor.

Signed: CONRAD DONALD IMTHURN."

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether before he communicated that document to the House, he took the precaution to compare it with official statements of how the letter reached the Foreign Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, absolutely independent sources.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: May I ask a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for questions.

Mr. MAXTON: At breakfast this morning, when I took up my "Daily Mail," I gathered from the leading article that this House was to be bored to tears this afternoon by a wearisome renewal of the discussion on the circumstances surrounding the Zinovieff letter. Perhaps this is the period at which the boredom begins, but, up till now, the House of Commons has shown a keener interest in the probing of this matter than anything of which I can think in recent times, except the new Prayer Book. It is probably the element of mystery and superstition in both that causes the particular interest in these two matters. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman standing up here and making the speech which he has delivered, and expecting that the country will regard that as a serious and responsible handling of an important matter by the Prime Minister. The telling bits in his statement were quotations from sources which he is not prepared to support in any way. I found from my previous investigations into this matter that, on the one side we had many Communist people, whose word, of course, is discounted by hon. Gentlemen opposite before they say anything, because of their political views—we found, in attempting to investigate, that the Communist people, both in Russia and here, were willing to throw open to the most strict examination all their archives, and every document that was in their offices. They were prepared themselves to appear in the Courts and be cross-examined, and challenged and examined on oath as to
their part in the matter. On the other side, there was no one who could be produced or ever has been produced, either to the late Prime Minister or to the present Prime Minister, who had ever seen the document. No responsible Minister of this country has ever seen the original document, or the man who insinuated the copy of it into a Governrnent Department.
I would not worry very much if the issue that was involved was the defeat of my right hon. Friend at the General Election. It was perfectly obvious to me, all the time my right hon. Friends were in the Government, that the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite were waiting patiently for a chance to catch them in something discreditable. For nine months the first Labour Government carried on all the intricate work of administration and legislation in this country, and during all that time hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could not point out anything discreditable in their work—not one solitary thing. Nine months was much too long to allow this to go on, and, having failed to get them in anything discreditable, they started to manufacture things against them. I make the accusation here quite bluntly, that that document known as the Zinovieff letter was manufactured by the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was slipped into the Foreign Office by them, and that at the appropriate moment it was slipped out of the Foreign Office again by them, and then, in the country, the worst possible complexion was given to the action of my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary over this letter. I not only read this morning the leader in the "Daily Mail," but I read the leader in the "Daily Mail" on the morning when the great exposure was made. It said:
In our main news page to-day we publish a document of overwhelming importance. It should be studied by every man and woman in the country that they may know the great danger which faces them.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that these matters contained in that document were matters of public knowledge throughout the country before; everybody knew what was in the Campbell article which led to the prosecution of Campbell, and all the things in this letter had already been said and written, so that the. "Daily Mail" was not doing
anything clever in telling the world that the Communists were supposed to be agitating for violent revolution. That was not the importance of the exposure of 1924. The importance of the exposure was this, that my right hon. Friend and his friends in the Cabinet driven by me, an extremist—and I know I am of immense value to right hon. Gentlemen opposite and to their Press as an extremist, mainly through matters of personal appearance rather than through matters of fact—that my right hon. Friends, driven by the extremists in their party, were entering into understandings with Moscow to bring about violent revolution in this country, and that, if the Election returned them to office, what was going to happen here was Red rule, and the overturning of the Constitution by violence with blood streaming down the streets. That is good enough for the platform, away from this House, but hon. Members know that it is far from being an adequate description of my right hon. Friend's attitude. While it is convenient to describe me as a revolutionist, we know also that that is not even an adequate description of my attitude.
To suggest that Labour in this country was planning and organising in alliance with Russia to bring about violent revolution in this country was to suggest a falsehood and a lie. I put it to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the tenour of this "Daily Mail" article was the tenour of the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on the public platform. My right hon. Friend has been asked why this was allowed to remain in the dark for years. I will tell you why. I agreed with the right hon. Gentlemen who investigated this business—we were all quite satisfied—that this matter was a forgery—that is, the committee which investigated this matter on behalf of the party. We reported in those terms to the Labour party executive, and the Labour party executive reported in those terms to the annual conference of the party. We were quite satisfied that it was a forgery, because there was no evidence of its despatch from Russia and no evidence of its receipt here. The Prime Minister may read any document he pleases, but the original letter was never in the headquarters of the British Communist party in this country. It was never there.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): How do you know?

Mr. MAXTON: Mr. McManus, to whom the letter was supposed to be sent, was actually in Russia at the time it was addressed to him, was living next door to Zinovieff. If he wanted to have secret revolutionary instructions conveyed to this country, he only had to put them in his pocket to bring them over. They were never brought. I know there has been a lot of talk about casting reflections on the Civil Service, and on this person and on the next person, But McManus had a very serious reflection cast upon his honour, and it was cast again to-day by the right hon. Gentleman, when he said men who were traitors to their country could not be honourable to one another. I turn that back on the right hon. Gentleman. That is the matter which I, at least, from these back benches, and the majority of my hon. Friends, want investigated—that underneath our decent public life there is a great cesspool of secret service work—maintained by the public money—behind every Department—and the actions of the clean, decent civil servant and the actions of the responsible political heads, particularly in matters involving our relationship with other countries, depend upon the statements and reports of men who are in the very essence of their trade professional cheats and liars. If our public safety is to depend on this sort of thing, what hope is there for a decent stable system of society of any description?
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was a matter of no moment because the trick on this occasion was worked on a Labour Government, but my right hon. Friend will remember that a similar thing happened with reference to the Arcos raid. There it was not the insinuation of a document into a State Department, but the vanishing of it from the Department—right out of the War Office, under the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman and his Army Council and all his field marshals and generals, after, as the Home Secretary told us in the House, they had had three or four warnings that attempts were being made on this paper. I have not refreshed my memory on that particular point, but that is my recollection of what
the right hon. Gentleman said—that out of the very middle of the War Office there vanished an important document, not under an incompetent Labour Government——

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Was not that the Russian secret service?

Mr. MAXTON: The interrupter asks me if that was not the Russian secret service. Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that I would stand here and defend any secret service? If it is dirty in Russia, it is dirty here. If it is indefensible in Russia, it is indefensible here. My hon. Friend will justify it in Great Britain while he condemns it in Russia. I condemn it wherever it appears. I did not push this matter because my right hon. Friends agreed with me, and I agreed with them, and the subsequent happenings have proved the correctness of the view, that there were so many people who had been involved in this business that sooner or later the truth would get out. We saw perfectly well that no investigation could produce definite court of law evidence unless the Labour party was itself prepared to set up a spying system, or unless it had behind it the powers of government to compel the presence of witnesses and to investigate their statements. We believed that sooner or later one of the scoundrels would give his friends away. While I do not want to suggest that the particular individual whose name has been associated with this recent development is a scoundrel——

Mr. J. JONES: He is a renegade Socialist.

Mr. MAXTON: take the view that if Mr. Gregory's only fault was gambling in francs—if that was the only fault the Government knew against Mr. Gregory, the punishment was much too heavy for the crime. I suggest that the Government knew of other things.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. JONES: We will have it all out now.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not know whether I ought to read here the servant girl's declaration. I gather from my right hon. Friend below me that he proposes to read a portion of it at a subsequent period of the Debate, and I will refrain,
but the interesting and important thing about this document, which I did not lay any stress upon when I saw it 3½ years ago, is this, that the first part of the statement has been borne out in absolute detail by the happenings and disclosures in the Dyne-Ironmonger Case report—with absolute accuracy. The gossip of this servant girl has been borne out in a court of law. I suggest that it does not do for an official inquiry just to push forward the other part and to push this aside as being of no moment at all. My hon. Friends never made the suggestion that the Fisher Report comes out to mean that Mr. Gregory, having lost money on francs, started to recoup himself by manipulating the franc market through his situation. We never suggested that. We do not have the same knowledge of market-rigging and francs and other financial operations as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but at least we have sufficient knowledge to know that they are the principals of the game, and we know it was almost impossible for Mr. Gregory to use his position in any way to influence currency for his own advantage. But we do make this suggestion—that the very great financial embarrassment which had been surrounding Mr. Gregory became very greatly relieved after the date 24th October, and the suggestion we make is a much more serious one than the one on which Mr. Gregory has been condemned.
All through this business my right hon. Friend has deemed it to be his duty as ex-Prime Minister, as ex-Foreign Secretary, to stand up and defend his officials. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] One of my hon. Friends says "Hear, hear!" I think in that my right hon. Friend was profoundly mistaken. I say here quite bluntly and brutally to him that he has been much more loyal to them than they have ever tried to be to him. In support of that fact, I not only bring out their absolute incompetence over getting into effective touch with him at the time when this matter was at a crucial stage, but I bring forward this further point, that during the four days when this matter must have been the subject of common discussion among the responsible officials in the Foreign Office my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Ponsonby), who
was then Under-Secretary, was actually sitting in the Foreign Office on one of those days in conversation with M. Rakovsky. Round about him in the office were responsible officials discussing the whole of the happenings connected with this business, and never once did one whisper of it reach the ear of my hon. Friend. Although the officials concerned knew that their chief was away in a far distant part of the country, and moving about, and difficult to get into contact with, they deliberately, designedly and with malice aforethought concealed the knowledge from the Under-Secretary, who, as Under-Secretary, had been the man in charge of all the negotiations with reference to the Russian Treaty.
I suggest that there is prima facie evidence to justify this House and the country expecting that the Government of the day, if they have nothing to hide, as we have nothing to hide, will subject the whole of the circumstances connected with this letter—its origins, its authenticity, its method of getting into the public offices, its method of getting out and its method of getting into the Press, to an investigation. We stand here as a party absolutely in agreement, but supposing there did turn out in the course of such an investigation things which cast reflections of one kind or another upon us, we are prepared to stand for them, and we ask the Government and their supporters if they are prepared to stand for the same thing? The right hon. Gentleman may feel very, very confident that the "Mail" will never turn on them. I want to remind him that it was the same "Daily Mail" which exercised undue pressure on the Government on the eve of the General Strike,, that broke off the negotiations, that flung the country into the General Strike.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated dissent.

Mr. MAXTON: The Home Secretary shakes his head. That was the Prime Minister's statement. Negotiations were going on at midnight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was struggling all he knew for peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, nobody doubts that statement except one or two Members opposite.
When the Prime Minister told us that he was struggling for peace, he suddenly heard his master's voice over the telephone, and the Government that was congratulating my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend upon having discovered some backbone found it had none itself. The Government discovered that the "Daily Mail" was more powerful and more potent in the affairs of this country; they were compelled to break off the negotiations, and they plunged the country into the great General Strike. I know it has always been said by hon. Members on the other side of the House that Mr. Cook was to blame, and that he caused the General Strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That has always been the contention of hon. Members opposite. This newspaper which played its definitive part in the General Election, and which precipitated the General Strike, has been an evil influence in the affairs of this country, and the country has a right to ask that the whole of the circumstances affecting civil servants and affecting the Conservative party and the "Daily Mail" should be subjected to the most open and most detailed inquiry, so that the affairs of the country can be rendered clean and pure.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I think the Leader of the Opposition, who moved the Motion we are now discussing, only made out part of the case for the necessity for having a searching investigation. The Prime Minister, who followed my right hon. Friend, really made out a much stronger case for the need of a searching investigation, and more especially the need for further evidence to be taken on this subject. There never was a more irresponsible speech delivered in this House than the one which has been delivered to-day by the Prime Minister. It is an absolute fabrication, and the Prime Minister knows that it is a fabrication, got up by his assistants within the last 48 hours. That is the sort of thing which has been put before this House in all seriousness as evidence. The dignity and self-respect of the House of Commons demands that the Prime Minister's statement should be made the subject of an investigation. I challenge every line contained in that statement, which is nothing else but a tissue of fabrications
from beginning to end. Not only is that statement a fabrication, but the Prime Minister has been a party to it from beginning to end. The House was not sitting when the francs case came before the Court, and I knew nothing about it until I read one morning in the newspapers that the Government had appointed a Committee. I was not aware at that time of the sworn affidavit by a woman who was acquainted with a lot of facts about this case. I was completely unaware of those facts, but from other sources I was made aware that a lot of money had passed, not necessarily into the pockets, but out of the pockets of some important persons in the Conservative party in connection with the Zinovieff Letter.
The morning I read those statements in the newspapers I wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and suggested that he should include within the inquiry that was being made an investigation as to whether any money had passed to or from those persons concerned, with the assistance of any civil servants, to certain foreign or local political organisations. Up to the present moment, I have not received even an acknowledgment of my letter. When the Session opened I discovered that I had committed a technical error, and I was told that my letter should have been addressed to the Prime Minister. I think it is usual in such circumstances for the Foreign Secretary to pass such a letter on to the Prime Minister, but the Government wished to conceal an unpleasant fact. Even after I had made that discovery the Foreign Secretary continued to ignore my letter, and I passed on my question to the Table of the House to be put to the Prime Minister. I do not say that my question was turned down, but I was advised that the matter I wished to raise could not be connected with the Francs Case, and doubt was expressed whether my question was in order. When the Report came out, I saw that the Foreign Office did investigate the other matter, and therefore it was up to the Foreign Office, as well as the Prime Minister, when a suggestion had come from a certain quarter, to see that an opportunity was given of bringing the evidence I suggested before the Committee. Without giving a chance of producing the evidence which I had suggested, the Government shut down the
inquiry and declared that the Committee had been convinced by the evidence placed before it that no moneys had passed in these transactions. What was the object of the Prime Minister in reading out three or four foreign names? The right hon. Gentleman knows the secrets behind the scene, and he knows that these people are ready to make a sworn affidavit that they forged the letter. What does that show? It simply shows that
Birds of a feather flock together.
If there be any truth in that suggestion, it is not merely expedient, but it is the duty of the Prime Minister to investigate the conduct of certain. British citizens. Why did the Prime Minister shut them out of the inquiry? The class of stuff which has been put before the House is just the random statement of some person who went to another person and made a statement, and then we hear in the so-called statement made by the Prime Minister that one person in the city meets another person who is connected with some other person who knows what is going on in the Communist party. It is a mean trick to try to make the public believe that the person who gave all this information to the Prime Minister was a member of the Communist party. We are not such simpletons.
The Prime Minister and many hon. Members opposite are living under the delusion that the Communist party is nothing but a body of conspirators, and that the executive of that party does everything in secret. As a matter of fact, we have less secrets than the Conservative party. We have been told that the Government have a source of information which they do not wish to divulge, but there is not a particle of truth in that statement, because nothing of the sort has happened. It would be far better that the Prime Minister should not invent stories in order to hide what happened in the year 1924. When the Prime Minister has made a statement I suppose every decent man and woman will expect that he and his friends will set up an impartial inquiry to show that the statements which have been made are correct. If there be so great a conspiracy against this country as that which has been suggested, then anybody who came forward to give evidence would become popular, because
he would be doing something to safeguard the lives of 45,000,000 people in this country. Now I come to the question embodied in my Amendment—in line 4, after the word "letter," to insert the words
as also the preparation of an offensive document to the Soviet Government by the then Secretary of State for Foteign Affairs prior to the establishment of the authenticity of the said Zinovieff letter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): If the hon. Member is thinking of moving his Amendment I wish to say that I have come to the conclusion that it is not in order, because it deals with an entirely different question from that raised in the Motion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I shall not be allowed to move my Amendment. I ask the House to reflect on the position. If, in 1924, the "Daily Mail" or the whole Press of Great Britain could have published a copy of that childish letter as a document, I am certain nine out of every ten readers would have laughed at it and put it on one side. It was not really the publication of the letter or of the so-called authentic secret document which created the situation, but the publication of a despatch with the letter which gave it any status at all. If the letter had been published alone, nobody would have taken it as a genuine letter, and it would have been considered of no importance. It was the despatch accompanying the letter which gave to the forgery all the status and importance of a serious State document. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to impress upon us that there was some sort of a leakage in these matters in Great Britain. We have been told that the man who made that entirely false and untrue statement was an honourable man and a patriot. Of course, that man had friends among the high officials. At six o'clock in the evening on the date which has been alluded to, he learned of the existence of a most treacherous and seditious document calculated to bring about a revolution in this country.
At half-past nine the following morning, he was able actually to obtain a copy of it. If that man really was a man with any grain of common sense, or honesty, or patriotism about him, he would have set the police on the heels of these persons to get the original document.
That was his plain duty as a citizen, and not to sit down and be content with a copy of it. Here was a serious document, and this man said, "I will go and give a little money to a traitor in the Communist party, and he will sit down somewhere in the dark and make a copy of it for me." The gentleman who made that statement to the Prime Minister was in reality a traitor if he was speaking the truth; but, of course, he was not a traitor, because he was not speaking the truth; the whole thing is a pure fabrication from beginning to end.
What I am trying to impress upon the House is that, while an investigation is absolutely necessary, the investigation into the despatch is of a much more serious nature than the investigation into the incidental events associated with it. We are told that this document was dated the 15th September. For about a week before that time, and for some weeks following that, Comrade McManus and Zinovieff were living side by side just outside Moscow, as is customary during the hot summer weeks there. The first forged draft obtained by the "Daily Mail" was certainly over the signatures of Zinovieff and McManus, because the White Russians who, in conjunction with the Conservative party, started the idea of this forgery stunt, were at that time well aware that Zinovieff and McManus were not only together, hut were acting together on behalf of the British branch and were living side by side. On that account, in order to make the story look natural, the first draft which Mr. Marlowe obtained was a draft with the two joint signatures. It was only afterwards, when they received a telegram from Lithuania, that they learned to their surprise, that McManus was preparing to leave for London, quite unexpectedly, on account of the changing over of the situation here. When they received that telegram, they saw that it would not be proper to keep McManus's signature, as he would be sure to challenge it, and so a second draft was produced a few days later, which it was sought to confuse with the original draft with McManus's signature, making the draft appear to be addressed to McManus.
Anybody with the document in front of him could see that there was no rhyme or reason for such a document. Of
course, we are told in this House that it was quite like the Communist party, that it contained all the resolutions of the Komintern, which were published in the "Pravda" in July. These are all reasons why no secret document should come to us. They do not show that there was any necessity for the passing on to us of a secret seditious document; they are exactly the reasons why no secret document was necessary in October, when all the resolutions had been openly passed and published in the "Pravda" in July and August. What happened? According to our record, and we should like an investigation as to this, about the 8th August, the draft Treaty with Russia was prepared and signed in London. It is no secret, but is well known to all of us, that all the Clauses of that Treaty with Russia were not to the liking of our then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is no secret that some Clauses were introduced into it without his approval, but they were there.
The White Russian Organisation in Lithuania got startled, and if our Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who are so busy collecting secret information, would get the documents and correspondence that passed between Lithuania and Berlin at that period, between the 17th and 25th August, they would find a considerable amount of correspondence showing that the White Russians were quite bewildered as to why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at that time had completely deserted them and gone over to the Bolshevist side altogether, in including in the Treaty, clauses which they had not expected to be included. At that time, communications began, and ways and means were being devised and discussed between Lithuania and Berlin as to what might be done, either to frighten the right hon. Gentleman out of his position, or to strengthen his hands and enable him to shake off his extremists. It was out of these discussions that the first forgery came, and, as I have said, it was distinctly and deliberately over the signatures of Zinovieff and McManus, because it was known to the forgers that these two people were sitting together side by side every day, almost in the same room.
When all is said and done about delays, from the 10th to the 24th October
is a full 14 days, and it is felt very strongly, not only in the Communist party but among the working classes generally, that the whole of the General Election turmoil came about because of the draft reply prepared by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Why did be do that We, as members of the Communist party, against whom such serious allegations are made from time to time, have a right to justice, to inquiry, and to fair play. Why was that draft prepared? If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gets in front of him a document suggesting mutiny in the Army and Navy, suggesting an armed rising in the country at some period or other, suggesting grave conspiracies, he either believes in that document or he does not believe in it. If he believed in it, what would he naturally do? He would go to Rakovsky and demand an explanation, or demand to be convinced that at any rate there was no hand of the Soviet Government in the doings of the Communist party.
What would be his second action? It would be a serious appeal immediately—not after four days but within four hours—to the Home Secretary, to the Law Officers of the Crown, to look into the matter at once and to take action. If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs believed that this document was genuine, it would be his duty, when he was out of town, to instruct the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to take the matter up immediately with Rakovsky, and not to leave it to the civil servants and clerks and office boys in the Foreign Office to do so. If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for one moment believed that this document was genuine, it was his duty, in spite of the General Election, immediately to consult the leading members of his Cabinet, to send them round a copy of it, to sound their judgment, to tell them not only that it might lead to a grave rupture, but that, if it had been with any country other than Russia, it might lead to war. If he believed for a moment that the document was genuine, he would not only have circulated copies to his colleagues, but would most certainly have instructed the Under-Secretary of State, who was then in London in his absence, to take the matter up immediately with Rakovsky.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at that time did nothing of the kind, and that means that he did not believe for one moment honestly or sincerely that this was a genuine document. And yet he drafted that despatch, and the drafting of a despatch to a foreign Government is a matter of far greater importance than merely the method of retailing gossip from one office to another, or from the Civil Service to the Press. I candidly say that, in matters like that, leakages do not necessarily and always take place by bribery and secret documents. We know that we are living under a system of class society. The aristocratic clubs, where high officials would go and mix with other officials, are sufficient channels through which to pass gossip and information and to take care of class interests. We do not charge the officials in all public offices with being class conspirators, but we say that it is quite natural for them to be class-conscious. There is not the slightest doubt in our minds that, as long as the present machinery continues, there is a class bias and a class partiality in all the public offices, and for any Labour Minister at the head of such an office to ignore the fact that that office is a class-conscious office, with high officials who are class-biased and class conscious, is nothing short of a great misfortune for the workers themselves.
We believe that the matter for investigation is the origin of the drafting of that despatch, and, if again, there were an examination of some of the correspondence of Abramovitch and Company, who may have been responsible for giving this information to the "Daily Mail" which we are quite ready to believe—it would be found that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in making that draft, succumbed to that exact conspiracy which was worked up by the White Russians, with the abject either of overthrowing the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or of strengthening his hands and enabling him to overthrow his extremists. We believe that, if an investigation is made, it will be found that that draft was made, and everything was done in August, in order to help him, after the General Election was over, to fight his own extremists and come to terms with Mr. Asquith for another Coalition Ministry.
While the chief matter has been completely ignored, these little details are taken up from time to time as subjects for investigation and searching inquiry. We do not for a moment disagree with taking up these little details or with the investigation of the character and general moral of permanent civil servants, but I would put this to the House: Suppose for a moment that it was not the Russian organisation and the Russian Government, but an American organisation of some anarchists, or an Italian organisation, or a French organisation, which had written, to the Communist party or to some other organisation in Great Britain, a letter with the object of spreading sedition in the Army or of doing something injurious to this country; and suppose that the Foreign Secretary had written a letter half as insulting, half as offensive, and half as unjustifiable, made up in defiance of the interests of the working class in this country. Every sentence of that dispatch is an insult, not to the Soviet Government but to the workers of this country. If such a despatch had been sent to the American or the French Government, we should have been brought near a situation of war. That is a very grave matter, and it was on that account that I suggested the Amendment which you, Sir, have ruled out of order. But I beg the attention of the House to this, that, instead of taking it flippantly and lightly, instead of accusing the Communist party of doing this and that, it would be much more honourable for people on all sides of the House to go in for an open-minded and impartial inquiry into all matters relating to the events of the Election of 1924.


            The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir
            Douglas Hogg)
          : Having listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in presenting this Motion to the House, he has left me in a state of bewilderment as to what his attitude is and as to what his grievance is. As I understood him, he repudiated with indignation the accuracy of the suggestion that he was anxious to avoid publication of the Zinovieff letter. At the beginning of his speech, in order to show with what expedition the matter had been handled under his direction, he
claimed credit to himself for the fact that the document was sent to the Press on 24th October, and yet at a later stage of his speech his grievance seemed to be that circumstances which he resented had made it necessary for him to take that course. The question I should like answered, which so far as I know has never been answered yet by the Opposition, is not whether the Leader of the Opposition meant when the election was safely over to publish the document and his note in reply to it, but whether he meant to publish it in time for the people who were going to vote at the General Election to know what was in it before they voted. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not here to answer that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has answered it"] Did he answer "Yes" or "No"? His own followers do not know which way he answered it. I see the right hon. Gentleman has returned. The question I was putting was not the question whether or not the right hon. Gentleman meant to publish the document. He has told us he intended it to be published. I need not assure him, of course, that I accept that assurance.

Mr. MacDONALD: Why do you require to do that?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope I need not assure the right hon. Gentleman that I accept his assurance. The point I am putting is quite a different one. The point about which I should like information, about which his followers think he has given information, though they do not know what it was, is this. If there had been no intervention by the "Daily Mail," if his hand had not been forced, to use his own expression, if the publication had not taken place owing to the "Daily Mail's" discovery, did the right hon. Gentleman intend that the document should be published in time for the electors to make up their minds about it before the General Election?

Mr. MacDONALD: Is the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make that in the middle of negotiations, if a General Election comes on, everything should be published immediately? If so, if an election took place last week, would he have justified me in publishing all I know about Egypt?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he has not answered my question.

Mr. MacDONALD: I have answered it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Evidently, then, I did not make it plain. I will try again. But for the "Daily Mail's" intervention, did the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the Zinovieff letter before the General Election or not? Answer that.

Mr. MacDONALD: I intended to follow the practice the Foreign Office always has followed. It publishes its correspondence with a Foreign Power when the correspondence has come to a proper end.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understand that answer to be a rather indirect way of saying that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to publish it until after the General Election.

Mr. MacDONALD: Why should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the answer to mean that I assumed that I was as met by honest opponents?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Because I was not asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he assumed he was met by honest opponents. I was asking him a very simple question—when did he mean to publish the Zinovieff letter?—and he cannot answer. Let me put this dilemma. Either he did intend to publish it before 29th October or he did not. I still do not know which, but I think he means he did not. If he did mean to publish it before 29th October, what grievance has he that he was compelled to publish it before then? If, on the other hand, he did not intend to publish it before 29th October, does he not now think he ought to be very grateful to the "Daily Mail" for having prevented him from concealing what he now knows and admits the electorate regarded as a most material fact which they ought to have known before they were asked to pronounce their verdict? If the right hon. Gentleman does mean the House to understand that his intention had been to keep this document until after the General Election unknown to the electorate and then to publish it, I think I must remind him that fraud does not
consist only in misstatement of fact but equally in the concealment of it. There is another question about which I am in some doubt. Does the right hon. Gentleman now say the Zinovieff letter was a forgery or not? I do not know what he says. I do not believe he does himself.

Mr. MacDONALD: As the right hon. Gentleman pauses for a reply, I would refer him to what his own Prime Minister said a few minutes ago.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a most cautious lack of desire to answer a straight question with straightness. I need not remind him that I cannot insist on an answer, but if he will not give me an answer I think the House can draw its own conclusions. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman, in his own heart, believes the document to be genuine, but he dare not say so. I know well enough that some of his back-bench followers have said the document was a forgery, and have repeated the statement to-day. The only difference is that they do not know any of the evidence and the right hon. Gentleman does know some of it.

Mr. MAXTON: That is not true. We know all the evidence except the liar's evidence.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the Foreign Secretary told the House as long ago as December, 1924, the evidence of this document reached the Foreign Office, not from one source, but from four different and independent sources, every one of which was a source which had previously been tested and found to be absolutely reliable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many were paid?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that a relevant or even a useful interruption——

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many of these four sources were paid from Secret Service money, or other money, for information.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer "Yes" or "No.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That question I cannot answer "yes" or "no," because I do not know, but I would remind the House that if they were paid they were paid by the Labour party.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to be misunderstood by carelessness. I presume he means the Labour Government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. I did not mean to suggest that it was paid out of the party fund.

Mr. MAXTON: That was part of the policy of continuity.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It shows how much wiser the Labour Government Front Bench is when in power than it sometimes is when in opposition. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), of course, has no doubt about it. He says it is a forgery, and he is able to tell us why. He says he knows it is a forgery, because he has been to Russia——[HON. MEMBERS: "He never was in Russia!"]—then he has even less means of information that I thought he had—or that he knows someone else who has been to Russia, and that other gentlemen have assured him that the Russians have said that if they searched their archives they would not find anything in them.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not think that I brought the Debate on to any cheap line. Investigation in Russia was mainly on behalf of the Labour party by representative trade unionists, assisted by a competent expert in foreign affairs. They were not merely offered access to the Russian archives, but they had access to the Russian archives. I am quite prepared to admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can suggest that the archives were specially prepared. Will he allow us to search his archives?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Government will certainly not allow the hon. Member to search any archives. [Interruption.] The position, therefore, is, that the hon. Member who does not know the evidence, is told by highly creditable people, whose word I thoroughly accept, that they have been to Russia and that there is nothing now in the archives, which proves that the letter was not sent. The hon. Member
evidently has not studied the law of evidence very well, because he would withdraw that conclusion if he had. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition regarded this publication as a bombshell. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division told us that the reason it produced such an effect was that it was suggested that this letter showed that there was a plot between the Labour party and the Russian Government to bring about a revolution in this country. I doubt very much if all the ingenuity of the right hon. and hon. Members opposite could ever find, even in the speeches of the most irresponsible candidates, any such statement. I will remind the House of what the relevance of the letter was, and why it was a bombshell. The reason it was a bombshell was that the election was being fought upon the issue of whether or not we ought to make the Treaty which the Labour Government had signed, or had arranged to sign, with Russia. That Treaty provided for a very large number of millions of pounds—£44,000,000 I think the sum was, speaking from memory—being guaranteed by the British taxpayer to the Russian Government, and the Zinovieff letter showed the people of this country that the danger which we had been pointing out was fully justified, namely, that this Russian Government, whom we were being asked to finance, were going to use this money to produce a revolution in this country. That is the bombshell, and that is of what the people of this country showed their appreciation when they voted for us.
What is the inquiry upon which we are asked to embark? Is it an inquiry into the genuineness of the Zinovieff letter, or is it an inquiry into the question of how the "Daily Mail" obtained possession of the letter? If it be an inquiry into the genuineness of the Zinovieff letter that is a matter which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, cannot be inquired into by any public body or by any body outside the narrow circle of the Privy Council, and is an inquiry, further, which has been already undertaken twice in 1924-once by a Cabinet Committee, which he set up showing what he thought was the proper sort of body to inquire into the question, and once by the Cabinet Committee, which we set up, and which gave us a report which absolutely satisfied everybody who heard
it as to the genuineness of the letter. Why is it we cannot have a public inquiry? It is for exactly the reason some hon. Members opposite want to have an inquiry. There are two dangers which would result from such an inquiry. The first is, that it might disclose to the Russians what are the Government's sources of information? That is why Mr. Tchitcherin wants an inquiry, but that is not a reason why the House of Commons is going to grant one. And the second reason why they would like an inquiry is to find out who, in the ranks of the Communist party, gave away the secret which the hon. Member who has just spoken said does not exist. That, again, is a reason which may appeal to some hon. Members opposite but is not a reason which will appeal to the House of Commons. Those are reasons why an inquiry of that character, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself knows, is impossible.
What is the other inquiry? The other inquiry is as to how the "Daily Mail" got information about the letter. My right hon. Friend and Leader, the Prime Minister, has pointed out already to the House the futility of embarking upon such an inquiry, the impossibility of arriving at any conclusion after Mr. Marlowe has refused, as he has already refused, and as he said he will refuse, to give information. Surely, after the statement which has been read this afternoon it becomes too ridiculous even to the Opposition. [Interruption.] I heard one right hon. Gentleman opposite ask who is Mr. im Thurn. Mr. im Thurn is a gentleman who is very well known in the City of London. His uncle, I think it was, was Governor—[Interruption]. There seems to be a great reluctance to hear the answer. His uncle was the Governor of two or three of our important Colonies. His brother has a very responsible position in either the naval or the military forces of the Crown, and he himself is a gentleman in a very responsible position in the City of London and is well known by the great bulk, at any rate, of City men. He is a gentleman of unblemisned reputation, a gentleman who is unconnected with any political party, who is not connected with the Government in any shape or form or with the Civil Service or any branch of Government service, and he has told us
—he has told the House of Commons—over his signature that he gave this information not for any pecuniary reward or advantage of any sort or kind, but simply and solely because, as a patriotic citizen, he thought that if information of that kind existed it ought to be known to the electors before the General Election.
I think my right hon. Friend made it clear; if not, I am anxious to make it clear, that the source from which Mr. im Thurn got his information was not any one of the sources from which the Government obtained their information. It was a wholly independent source altogether. We have, therefore, the fact that, as far as an inquiry into the genuineness of the letter is concerned, that is impossible, and the only possible inquiries have taken place three and a half years ago. As far as an inquiry into the means by which the "Daily Mail" obtained possession of the document is concerned, if, indeed, that were a matter of national concern, that inquiry has been rendered wholly unnecessary by reason of the fact that we have already got the information in the only way in which we can got it, that is to say, by the voluntary statement of the man who gave the information, and not by locking up the editor of the "Daily Mail" because he refuses to give the information.
There are only one or two other sentences which I want to utter. First of all, there has been a statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division making a bitter attack upon Mr. Gregory, an attack which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition either welcomes or endorses, an attack which accused Mr. Gregory in explicit terms of having sold himself and sold the nation for a large and pecuniary reward, an attack which, if it were made outside this House of Commons, might result in Mr. Gregory being in a different financial position if the hon. Member were able to pay the damages. [Interruption.]

Mr. MAXTON: Is that a threat?

HON. MEMBERS: Make it outside.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member asked me, "Is that a threat?" I hold no brief for Mr. Gregory. I have no authority to speak for him, but I am resenting what I regard as an abuse of
the privileges of the House, attacks made upon an ex-member of the Civil Service without notice to him and without any evidence adduced in support of the charge, and when that attack is made, after there has been a full inquiry, and after there has been an expressed exoneration by the findings of a Committee, which, up to that moment, I had understood even the Opposition accepted, and in which they stated in these terms:
We are satisfied that there is not the slightest foundation for any of the suspicions which have, in our opinion, most unjustly attached to Mr. Gregory in connection with the events of the 24th and 25th October, 1925, and we beg to report accordingly.
I know that what is said within these walls is absolutely privileged, but, none the less, not even knowing Mr. Gregory—certainly having had no connection with him with regard to this matter—I do protest against what I regard as the greatest abuse of those privileges, the sort of insinuation and attack which the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to make this afternoon.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish at once to withdraw anything that I have said if it can be rightly described as an attack on Mr. Gregory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I did not write the official report. I think that was the most serious attack on Mr. Gregory's character so far. The official report went beyond the bounds for which it was set up, and raised a whole number of suspicions round Mr. Gregory's name. I do Mr. Gregory a service, which I am entitled to do as a Member of Parliament, when I say there should be further open and public inquiry, since there is a further cloud cast upon his character.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The House will judge of the adequacy of that service when I remind it that the hon. Member an hour or two ago told the House that Mr. Gregory's bank account had been largely improved——

Mr. MAXTON: That is not true. I certainly cannot allow that to pass. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said it!"] It is a gross travesty of my statement. I said that the affidavit of the servant girl stated that Mr. Gregory, who was suffering from serious financial embarrassment, was relieved of financial embarrassment on or about the 24th October.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If that is what the hon. Member said, I accept what he says he said, and if that. is what he intended to say, then Mr. Gregory is completely vindicated, after inquiry, by the Committee. I did the hon. Member too much credit when I said that he made the charge; he only insinuated it. He went on to suggest that Mr. Gregory had been more harshly punished by the Government, because there are other things which were not disclosed in the Report. If that is not an attack upon his honour and character, then I do not know what it is.
The hon. Member proceeded to make an attack on the Secret Service. I am not sure that I need pay much attention to the hon. Member's attack, after what has just happened. If an attack is to be made upon the Secret Service, let me remind the House of two things, first of all, that the Secret Service which the hon. Member so despises or, rather, the use of secret methods, is a use which the Labour party itself boasts of adopting when it needs it. This is what Mr. Hamilton Fyfe said, in his diary of the General Strike. He was, I think,, editor of the "Daily Herald" in May, 1926:
We have, of course, our informants in the ranks of Baldwin's people, who know pretty well what is going on in their camp. It is not a nice business, spying and employing spies, but it is not so nasty as usual in this case, for those who supply us with information are not paid agents; they are the friends of Labour.
The Government did not think it necessary to set up an inquiry when Mr. Hamilton Fyfe's diary was published. Since the Secret Service, not of a party but of the country, are attacked, let me say, here and now, that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the great bulk of the party for whom I speak are concerned, we regard the members of the Secret Service as people who are giving most valuable work for the State, even in circumstances of considerable danger to themselves,, and we regard the services which they render as a real benefit to the nation. No doubt, the existence of that Secret Service is repugnant to some hon. Members opposite, and no doubt they would like to know how much the Secret Service find out and how they get their information. Those are not matters with regard to which we desire to satisfy their curiosity. So far as this
Motion is concerned, we ask the House unhesitatingly to reject it, because it is futile in its inception, and it has become ridiculous in its conclusion.

Mr. THOMAS: I would remind the Attorney-General that it was unnecessary on his part, at the outset of his speech, to mistake the House of Commons for the Old Bailey. My right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister was trying to keep in mind the fact that, when he was dealing with foreign policy, he expected the usual traditional treatment from all parties in the House, that no party bias should enter into the policy. To suggest that he ought to answer a plain "yes" or "no" to the Attorney-General on a subject such as we are now discussing, is far more suitable for the Old Bailey than the House of Commons. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to be too squeamish about the innuendoes of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). What did the Attorney-General mean by the series of questions which he put to my right hon. Friend, "Did you or did you not intend to publish this document?" That was the meanest kind of innuendo. The Foreign Secretary, after making a speech in Glasgow dealing with this subject, came back to the Foreign Office and examined the documents and took the first opportunity of making a speech in this House. The effect of that speech did not confirm the statement of Lord Curzon that my right hon. Friend had had the document in his possession for a month, nor the statement of Lord Birkenhead that he had delayed three weeks, nor the statement of the Prime Minister that he had delayed for a fortnight; the Foreign Secretary admitted that he had no complaint of any kind to make against the expeditious way in which my right hon. Friend had dealt with the matter.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Yes, and that is what makes the inquiry of the Attorney-General so pertinent. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend the document to be published when it was, and when it was ready for publication, or did he not?

Mr. THOMAS: Do I gather that if last week we had been in the midst of a General Election, the right hon. Gentleman
the Foreign Secretary would have published his Egypt despatches in the same way?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I would not have published those negotiations, because they were negotiations. There were no negotiations going on at the time in question on the matter we are discussing. The right hon. Gentleman's claim is that it was published as expeditiously as possible. I agree, but is it his claim that it was published before he intended it to be published?

Mr. THOMAS: We will observe, first, the significance of the answer of the Foreign Secretary. He says distinctly, "In the midst of foreign negotiations, I would not be influenced by an election." [interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may protest, but the Foreign Secretary accepts that statement. My right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister this afternoon did not set out to claim that he had been very expeditious in the handling of it. His claim was to answer some of the contemptible things that had been said about him.

Mr. DIXEY: Answer the question which has been put to you.

Mr. THOMAS: Lord Curzon said that he knew the document had been in my right hon. Friend's possession a month. Lord Birkenhead said that he knew the document had been in my right hon. Friend's possession three weeks. My right hon. Friend's object this afternoon was to show that that was not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will give the full story of the publication. But I want, first of all, to draw the attention of the House to the reason for this Debate.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. A very pertinent point has been put to the right hon. Gentleman. May the Members of the House of Commons have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. There are many dialectic questions put in this House, but we must allow hon. and right hon. Members to make their replies in their own way.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: The House is entitled. to know the changed circumstances which have led to the demand for an Inquiry. I will give them. When the last Debate
took place, so far as Mr. Gregory was concerned, certain hon. Members on this side knew that he had signed the document, knew that he had signed it without the authority or knowledge of the then Prime Minister, knew that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was in the Foreign Office and had not been consulted, knew that Lord Haldane, who had been left in charge, was never consulted, and never heard a word about it. Although we knew all these things, I, speaking publicly, said that I did not accuse Mr. Gregory or the late Sir Eyre Crowe of any mean or party action. I went further and said that I thought they were incapable of such a thing. That was my attitude then. The House should know the changed circumstances. I am not going to have the Attorney-General nearly laying out the hon. Member for Bridgeton as someone prepared to make charges and not to substantiate them. I will tell the House why I thought Mr. Gregory was an honest man, and why I told him so. Three and a half years ago, after the Debate in this House, the document now in my possession was brought to me, and I am going to read it. It is a document to which we attach importance. It is a sworn statement from a servant girl. When the House has heard it, and heard what I did on receipt of it, and has followed subsequent events, I believe that, however strongly the House may feel, it will see the importance of knowing it.

Mr. SKELTON: If this is a vital document in the Debate, why was it not produced at the beginning instead of at the end of the Debate?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Was the document the Prime Minister read a sworn document?

Mr. THOMAS: This is a sworn document by Violet Digby:
Through a registry office in July, 1924, I obtained a situation as housemaid for Mrs. Bradley Dyne. I started at Birchington, near Margate, where she had a furnished house. We left there and went to Glencoe, Cedar Road, Hythe, and stayed there 2½ months. Mr. Gregory used to come to Hythe for week-ends. He stayed almost all one week and came almost every other weekend. I gathered he was an official at the Foreign Office. We left sometime in September, 1924, and came to live at Kenway Cottage, Kenway Road, Earls Court. Mr.
Gregory came in about 10 a.m. every morning. Mrs. Dyne used to see him in private. Mrs. Dyne told me they had lost a lot of money through speculating in francs, that Mr. Gregory would have to leave the Foreign Office and get a job elsewhere. She also said she was going to get work. This was about the 21st October. On a number of occasions I heard her telephoning to a firm named Ironmonger, about keeping them waiting for certain funds. Mr. Gregory pretty well lived there during that week. They went out to lunch together, and generally came to tea and left about seven. On Saturday, October 25th, Mrs. Dyne called attention to Mr. Gregory's photo in the paper. She went out to lunch. On the same day Mrs. Dyne spoke to the bank manager on the telephone and asked if he would wait. She mentioned the sum of 60,000 francs, and said it would be all right. About this time Mrs. Dyne said Mr. Gregory did it when the Prime Minister's back was turned. On Monday, 27th October, Mrs. Dyne said that Mr. MacDonald got thrown out and Mr. Gregory had made his name. Mr. Gregory should have come to London, but Mrs. Dyne said he had 'phoned up to say he had gone to Cardiff to see Mr. MacDonald.
Observe the significance of the dates:
On Tuesday night, 28th October, Mr. Gregory came with a man aged about 40, a foreigner. Mr. Gregory said laughing, 'Come into the plot.' They went into the room together, staying until about nine, when the Russian left. They appeared to be very pleased, and coining out Mrs. Dyne said. Come, we are fifty-fifty in the situation.'

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Is this the same document which the Civil Service Committee investigated last month, and said they did not believe and were satisfied was unfounded?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. Let the House observe the significance. This document was in my possession in February, 1925. What did I do with it I sent for Mr. Gregory at once, and I said, Now look here, Gregory, this is the kind of thing that is going about, and it is only fair you should know it, and I am taking the straightforward course of showing it to you right away." He thanked me for it, and his answer was, "There is not only not a vestige of truth in it, it is not only absurd and ridiculous, but the facts are that Mrs. Dyne's husband was a college chum of mine and I merely visited the house." I said, "I accept that unreservedly." That was in the early part of 1925. I ask the House to imagine what my feelings were when a few months ago in the Law Courts everything said in that document which I had three years ago was revealed.
Every Member of the House knows that is a fact. I have read the document relating to the facts. I ask any fair-minded man in any part of the House, reading the evidence as it came out at the Law Courts a few months ago, if it is not remarkable that this document is almost identical with that evidence. What was the next stage? In so far as the francs are concerned—I am dealing exclusively with the question of francs—I ask the House whether it is not absolutely consistent with that statement. The Government very promptly and rightly set up a Committee of Inquiry. The House will agree that it was my duty then, with this document in my possession, that I should give them the benefit of it. That is what brings the reference to it into their Report. But I am entitled to ask a question now. That Committee were not only not empowered, but it was not their business to inquire into the political side of the question. Therefore, what we demand now is that, as public reference has been made to it, there should be an inquiry into the political side.
I, certainly, do not suggest, and never did suggest, that Gregory sold this document. I do not think for one moment that any such charge could be laid against him. Whatever may be said, I at least would not associate myself with any such statement, but I am entitled to say that Gregory deliberately lied to me, and when I at least played straight and showed the document to him, when I accepted his word and said nothing about it, then I at least am entitled to say that he deceived me in this matter. That was the only thing the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind. But I will give another reason for this Inquiry. Whatever the sources of information, as far as the document is concerned, the statement now made by the Prime Minister in the document he has read is entirely inconsistent with the information at our disposal, and at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. Just as he said in the last Debate that one must be very careful in dealing with this kind of document, I say deliberately that, although the document just read by the Prime Minister comes, I gather, from an individual who says that he himself supplied the letter to the "Daily Mail," and also says the source from which he got the document, yet when my right hon.
Friend tried to obtain the sources of information on which that document reached this country, he not only could not obtain it, but it was positively refused him, and we have never known it until this day. If that be so, there is a double reason for an Inquiry now.
You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says this afternoon, "What need is there for an inquiry when, as a matter of fact, here is the source of the information?" That is the case for the Prime Minister. Our answer is that it is entirely inconsistent with our inside knowledge in the Department. But there is a much stronger reason than that. This document was circulated to four Departments. We know, and every Minister on that side who has investigated the case knows, that it was not only not treated seriously in some Departments, but it was not shown even to the military heads of one Department. In one Department it actually went through seven hands, including three junior clerks. When a statement has been made such as Mr. Marlowe makes, which makes it perfectly clear that he had inside knowledge as to which of the Departments it went through, and when we know that it actually went through seven hands in one Department, then it is not we who are reflecting upon the Civil Service, but in their interests we demand an inquiry. Of course, the Prime Minister is quite justified in saying, "Let us try to go back to the atmosphere of 1924." The then Home Secretary is sitting here to-day, and he has been waiting three years for the Secretary of State for India to apologise to him. The mischief was done in the Election when the statement was made that the Home Secretary had with knowledge deliberately suppressed this document. He publicly repudiated it. He says, and says now, that he has never even seen it. We are entitled to ask the House, in considering the situation, to keep in mind the circumstances of the moment.
I conclude, therefore, by asking the Prime Minister whether he himself can be satisfied with a situation so unsatisfactory as it is to-day. He knows perfectly well that there is a grave suspicion in the public mind, that there are men and women, even members of the Conservative party, who are not happy about
the circumstances surrounding this letter, and that there is a suspicion that this was a deliberate forgery for party purposes.[An HON. MEMBER "Do you believe it?"] I am asked: "Do I believe it?" I say,, "Yes," and I will give my reasons. On the Saturday the assumption was that the letter was genuine, but after I had investigated it the one thing which satisfied me that it was a forgery was an examination of McManus, who, the House will remember, is supposed to have signed the letter. McManus was speaking in Manchester on the Thursday night on the eve of the Election, and he put this to me. He said: "Assuming the letter is genuine, assume that it is the deliberate intention of Russia, I am supposed to have signed the letter and to have been present when it was drafted. Then why did not the writer give it to me to bring over, seeing that I was here before the letter arrived?"

Mr. MAXTON: He is the cleanest man connected with this game.

Mr. THOMAS: Hon. Members can answer that question for themselves. Why should he not have brought over the document? The answer was because he was suspected, but the Government, who only have an interest in the Army and the Navy, did not dare then to deal with McManus. Let me give my second reason. On the Tuesday prior to the publication of the document on the Saturday morning the "Manchester Evening Chronicle" reproduced a photograph of Zinovieff and said, "Look out for a bombshell re Zinovieff at the end of the week." That was four days before the publication of the letter. Further, the Wednesday edition of the "Daily Mail" of that week reported the visit of an important Russian to the Conservative headquarters. All this is prior to the bombshell on the Saturday morning. That is why I believe it was a forgery. That is why there is no anxiety to examine this question further; so many hon. Members opposite benefited by the forgery, and because an investigation would show conclusively that the Government are not exempt from responsibility. But it is purely on the ground of the Civil Service that we put forward this Motion.
No one is more ready to sacrifice himself rather than involve the Civil Service than my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald). The Prime Minister, in his speech to-day, said that the country was surprised and mystified by the silence of my right hon. Friend in his Swansea speech. The bombshell had exploded on the Saturday morning, and everyone expected the Prime Minister to deal with it on the Saturday afternoon, but he never said a word. Hon. Members who made speeches on that occasion said that it was because he was afraid, but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister know that on that occasion he sacrificed himself and his party rather than let down the Civil Service. He has had to bear all this burden and insult, and it is fair that the House and the country should know that, when my right hon. Friend first inquired why this document had been published, he received a reply to the effect that he himself had initialed it. He received that reply on the eve of his Swansea speech. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say deliberately that he did. I will repeat it. I say that on the Saturday afternoon, when he was expected to deal with the document and was, in fact, going to deal with it, he had telegraphed to the Foreign Office to ascertain the facts concerning its publication and that he received a reply from the Foreign Office saying, "You initialed it." He knew he had not, and he had to face that audience and the country saying to himself. "I am told I did something, but if I dare act I shall throw the Civil Service over."

Mr. WALLHEAD: Who forged the initial?

Mr. THOMAS: I say to the House that, in fairness to my right hon. Friend, nothing short of an inquiry will satisfy us. In any case, the Prime Minister has refused it to-day for reasons which I cannot understand or appreciate. He has refused it for the flimsiest of all excuses, that he is afraid Mr. Marlowe will not appear. I answer him by saying that if on an important issue like this, which affected, as he knows perfectly well, the fate of the General Election—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—at least that was the view of the present Home Secretary who, speaking on the Saturday, that is
the day on which this letter was published, said:
I believe this is the most serious matter that has arisen, and I cannot help thinking that it will decide the election.
Hon. Members know perfectly well that it did decide the election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asked "why." Because of the fraudulent use you made of it, because so many folk both lied and libelled my right hon. Friend.

Viscountess ASTOR: I did not use it.

Mr. THOMAS: I am perfectly prepared to accept the Noble Lady's statement. I

understand, of course, that Plymouth is an exception to all rules. I say that hon. Members took advantage of the situation, and, although the Prime Minister may now refuse an inquiry, we say that the position cannot remain where it is, that this matter is occupying and disturbing the public mind, and that we at least will not be satisfied until there is a, free, full, and impartial inquiry into the whole situation.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 326.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[7.26 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D,
Saklatvala, shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Davles, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Dennison, R.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnlco, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.
Mr B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, C.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Balnlel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Ahixander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bennett, A. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Berry, Sir George
Brass, Captain W.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Astor, Viscountess
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Briant, Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gower, Sir Robert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Briscoe, Richard George
Grace, John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Brocklebanlc, C. E. R.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grant, Sir J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, Major P. B.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F.E.(Bristol,N.)
Margesson, Captain D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burman, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Merrlman, F. B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, Sir George
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt.R (Prtsmth.S.)
Harris, Percy A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Haslam, Henry C.
Morris, R. H.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.sir J.A. (Birm.,W.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan
Murchison. Sir Kenneth


Chllcott, Sir Warden
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston Spencer
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)


Clayton, G. C
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Oakley, T.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pennelather, Sir John


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Homan, C. W. J.
Penny, Frederick George


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peering, Sir William George


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Philipson, Mabel


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pilcher, G.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, William


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whlteh'n)
Raine, Sir Walter


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, E.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Remer, J. R.


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Remnant, Sir James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Dixey, A. C.
Jackson, Sir. H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Drewe, C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthtaert
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ropner, Major L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


England, Colonel A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major I.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. O.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Flelden. E. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Shepperson, E. W.


Finburgh, S.
Lougher, Lewis
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenvon


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.-'C.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gates, Percy
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maclntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)




Steel, Major Samuel Strang
vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Storry-Deans, R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
withers, John James


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watts, Dr. T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Wragg, Herbert


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)



Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
winby, Colonel L. P.
Major Cope.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RYE:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for short leasehold hereditaments.)

Any ratepayer holding premises upon lease or agreement, having less than twenty years to run as from the date of assessment, shall be entitled by way of special deduction to an allowance from the rateable value of an amount equal to—

(a) the premium paid during each year of assessment on any redemption policy taken out to replace the capital sum paid for the acquisition of the premises; or
(b) such annual sum as may, in the absence of a redemption policy, be in the opinion of the rating authority sufficient to provide a fund for the replacement of the amount so paid for the acquisition as aforesaid.

Mr. RYE: I do not propose to move this new Clause because I am not satisfied that it is in order. It is more a question for a Finance Bill than for a Rating and Valuation Bill. I put the Clause on the Paper in order to draw attention to what I think is a substantial grievance of owners of leasehold premises.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance for special repairs.)

Any ratepayer may, as from the date of this Act, apply to the rating authority for a special rate of deduction from the rateable value in respect of structural repairs done or required to be done to the premises in consequence of damage directly attributable to traffic passing by the premises, and it shall be lawful for any rating authority on such application, if satisfied that such damage has occurred, to make such special allowance as may in their opinion be fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case.—[Mr. Rye.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have put down this new Clause to enable the ratepayer whose premises are affected and damaged by heavy passing traffic, to have a right to go to the rating authority between the periods of assessment and to ask for a special allowance. It is a reasonable Clause, because it is well known that nowadays heavy motor traffic, particularly lorry and omnibus traffic, seriously affects premises which in the ordinary way would stand for a great number of years, and in some cases it has been necessary to rebuild them. I will give an instance of damage done to premises by this class of traffic. I refer to shop premises in Eden Street, Kingston-upon-Thames. There, some two or three years ago, it became necessary for the owner of three shop premises to rebuild a considerable proportion of the front at a cost of £2,000. The damage done to the premises was undoubtedly attributable to the very heavy motor traffic that passed in almost continuous streams at certain periods of the week, particularly on Saturday and Sunday, through Eden Street into the Portsmouth road. I could give other instances. I can cite the houses in Beak Street, Regent Street, a number of which have recently been,condemned by the district surveyor. In such cases it is only reasonable that, where the ratepayer can prove or is in a position to satisfy the rating authority that damage has been done by that class of traffic, he should have an opportunity of going before the rating authority and asking for a special allowance in the nature of a reduction of the assessments.
I can refer to another case which, however, is not within my personal knowledge. It is a case where the traffic authority or the police authority—I am not certain which is in the position
to decide these questions—has directed omnibus traffic down a street which previously had not had to bear the burden of such traffic. The result has been that premises have been affected. I am told that ceilings have fallen and that generally the annual value of these hereditaments has been reduced. At the present time there is no redress. It is true that when the next period of assessment comes round it will be open to the ratepayer to claim that, by virtue of the disadvantage of the heavy traffic and its consequence, there is a reduction in the annual value, but at the present moment, although that damage is continuing, the ratepayer is quite powerless. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that this new Clause should be accepted. Indeed, if the Minister of Health will not accept it, I trust that if the matter goes to a Division the Clause will be carried by the House.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to second the Motion.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend, in moving this Clause, has forgotten that the object of the Rating and Valuation Act, of which this Bill is an amendment, is to insure that there shall be uniformity of valuation throughout the country. He has taken a particular case where, he says, values may be deteriorated by reason of heavy traffic in the neighbourhood, but I think my hon. Friend will remember that when we were discussing the Rating and Valuation Act in Committee, there were other classes of cases that were raised, which might be the subject of similar argument. There was, for instance, the question of subsidences in mining areas. It was in connection with subsidences and the effect of subsidences in South Wales that a Clause of a similar character was moved in Committee. Parliament objected to that view, and I think rightly. It is obvious that you can find a very large range of local conditions which might be said to affect the value of property. If it were to be admitted that a special deduction from the gross valuation were to be made in such cases, you would have the very thing that we have at last done away with, namely, each rating authority making its own rules
for the deductions which were to be allowed for special conditions, and you would no longer have uniformity of valuation, hut each area would be doing what it pleased. Therefore I must ask the House, in the interests of uniformity, to reject this Clause. The ratepayer who has suffered or is likely to suffer such damage as is contemplated by my hon. Friend can take the matter into Court, as is done in other cases, or must wait until the revaluation takes place, when he can put in a reasonable claim for a reduction of the gross value.

Mr. RYE: I would call attention to the fact that the case of the subsidences is not on all fours with those that I have cited. Since 1925, when the matter was discussed in Committee, there has been a considerable recurrence of the trouble to which I have referred. With very great respect, I still think that it would be only fair if a ratepayer were allowed, between the periods of valuation, to go forward to the rating authority and say, "The annual value of my premises has been materially reduced by the happenings that have occurred, and in the circumstances I ask for a reduction of the assessment." I cannot see that that would destroy uniformity in any way. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it would, but I do not follow his argument. If a ratepayer in Kingston, for example, went before his rating authority and obtained a reduction of the assessment, it would not confer a right on other people all over the country. It would be a case of dealing with individual case as and when events occurred. It would be only justice, if they, can show that their annual value has been reduced, that they should have a reduction in the assessment and a corresponding reduction in the rates. If that cannot be done, I suggest that the time has come when the burden ought to be put on the Road Fund so that people in the position I have described should be able to obtain some compensation.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of s. 24 of principal Act to London.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after the word "as," to insert the words
regard being had to the extent, if any, to which in the making of any valuation list in force at the commencement of this Act account was taken of any plant or machinery in or on any hereditament.
This Amendment and those which follow it on the Paper, are what I may call clarifying Amendments, intended to remove certain doubts which have arisen as to the construction of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. It has been suggested that as in London, different practices have been followed in different parts of the area in regard to the value put on machinery and plant in the past, a manufacturer might possibly be able to make a claim for the reduction of his assessment by the value of his machinery and plant, although, in fact, the full value of the machinery and plant had not been taken into account in settling the value at the last assessment. These words are put in, so that the amount of the reduction in consequence of the adoption of the rating of machinery Clause cannot be greater than the actual amount which has been affixed for the value of machinery and plant in the original valuation of the property.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 1, line 16, leave out the words "any hereditaments," and insert instead thereof the words "that hereditament as appearing in the valuation list."

In page 2, line 2, leave out the words "lists which are," and insert instead thereof the words "list which is."

In page 2, line 4, leave out the words "provisional lists," and insert instead thereof the words "a provisional list"— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Decisions of doubtful points of law.)

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
Clause 4 proposes an absolutely new method of procedure in the Law Courts and one which is extremely objectionable from every point of view, as far as I can see. It is inserted in this Bill without any definite connection with any other part of the Bill, and I cannot think that the Minister has taken legal advice as to this procedure. The Clause provides:
If on the representation of the Central Valuation Committee it is made to appear to
the Minister of Health that a substantial question of law has arisen in relation to the valuation of hereditaments or of any class of hereditaments for the purposes of rating and that, unless that question is authoritatively determined, want of uniformity or inequality in valuation may result, the Minister may submit the question to the High Court for its opinion thereon, and the High Court after hearing such parties as it thinks proper shall give its opinion on the question.
The Central Valuation Committee is an Advisory Committee set up under the Act of 1925 for the purpose of giving general advice, either direct to the Minister or to the rating authority. Whether the advice is to be given first to the Minister and passed on by him to the rating authority, I am not quite clear. The practice regarding access to our Law Courts is that access is only given to litigants where there is an issue between the parties. The proposal of this Clause involves a new juridical procedure, and, I think, a very vicious one. The Law Courts, from the earliest times, have always declined to give opinions on abstract questions of law. Our Judges have set their faces against giving decisions on law on ex-parte statements of facts because they know how easily those statements can mislead. Under this Clause, the Central Valuation Committee are to have the right, in a matter where there is no litigant before them, where there is no party and no issue of any sort or kind, to go to the Court on a statement of facts prepared by themselves—which is certain to be not absolutely accurate or not quite comprehensive. They are to have the right to seek a decision on facts put forward by themselves where there is no particular matter in dispute.
I challenge the Minister to point to any case where that is done in our procedure, with one possible exception. I believe something similar is done in a small degree under the National Health Insurance Act. I am not prepared to tell the House exactly how it is done in that instance, but I understand that the opinion of the Court can be taken on the question of whether a man is an insured person or not, or some question of that kind. In that case, however, the issue is small and it may be for the convenience of the community, but, even then, the procedure is checked and hedged about with securities to ensure that the Court will have the actual facts of the cases before it. In
this Clause, there is no such check. There is no procedure for securing that the facts of any particular case shall be put before the Court. The Court is asked to advise on an abstract general question, and if a real case arises between a rating authority and the subject, one or other of the parties may be met by the Government with the statement, "Here is a decision on that point which we have obtained." This Clause raises a question which goes to the foundations of the system of the administration of justice in this country. It is unnecessary for any object which the Minister has in view in the Bill. It is likely to do harm instead of good, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the views of Members of the House who know something about the practice of the Law Courts, and who are anxious to see that practice remain as efficient as it is now.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I beg to second the Amendment. I share the hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter if he finds, as I think he will, that those who are experienced in the proceedings of our Courts are opposed, practically unanimously, to this proposal. Our Courts have always been opposed to deciding hypothetical cases, and, quite rightly so, because such decisions, in experience, are always found unsatisfactory. The Mover of the Amendment is right in saying that this is a new procedure, but I gather that it is borrowed from the Arbitration Act, Under the Arbitration Act there is power for the arbitrator to consult the Court on a question of law arising in an arbitration.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: There are parties to that issue.

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: That is so and even then it works unsatisfactorily. There is an instance concerning a late Member of this House, Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, who took the opinion of the Court and made an award in accordance with that opinion. Then the House of Lords upset the award because they held that it was obviously, and on the fact of it, bad in law, because Mr. Lyttelton had based it on a, decision which the Court had given to him in consultative jurisdiction. The Minister will find that the objection to decisions on hypothetical cases is widespread and I trust he will withdraw this Clause.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I support the Amendment and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it, but I am bound to say that my recollection of the law is somewhat different from that of the Mover and Seconder. My recollection is that under the Local Government Act of 1888, this consultative right was given to county councils.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Was that power given as between the county councils and the subject?

8.0 p.m.

Sir G. HOHLER: Yes, between the county councils and everybody concerned. I have a clear recollection of a case which was heard by Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, as he then was. One of the objects of that Act was to get small quarter-session boroughs to surrender their rights. The Act imposed on them an additional charge which other larger boroughs did not bear and which came out of the county rates and the matter came before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams under a Section similar to this, for his consultative opinion. It was argued by one counsel only, for one side, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams gave a decision which was an absolutely agreed decision. It was a hopeless decision however, merely because he got no assistance from counsel on the other side and that is what is required in cases of this kind. It is necessary to have proper arguments from both sides based on all the facts, as claimed or agreed between the parties, with each side straining to get. the points decided in its favour.
That being the case, I remember further quite clearly—I know, in fact—that that consultative opinion was brought under review in a later case and it was decided that it was wholly wrong. It is also my recollection, but I am not certain about it, that in order to get that decision upset, subsequent parties who fought the case had to take it to the Court of Appeal, and so expense was incurred. It seems to me that these novel forms are very undesirable. I would challenge my right hon. Friend to cite any case in which this consultative jurisdiction under the Act of 1888 has been of any use. I have not looked into it lately, but I know of none, and I, therefore, press my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment. I am sure that it is not a procedure which is viewed by
the Courts with any pleasure. Under this Clause somebody may appear, though bow he will get there I do not know, and then he may be paid certain funds by the central authority. I think it would be far better if it was left to be dealt with under the ordinary law applicable to rating cases.

Mr. ATKINSON: I also desire to support the Amendment, because, ex hypothesi, the Clause is to apply to questions which will affect a number of owners, every one of whom will have their independent right of appeal when the valuation is made or the rate is levied, and because not one of them will be bound by an opinion obtained in this way. The next point that I want to make is this, that the burden is put on the High Court of saying who shall appear. How is the High Court to do that? Are they to pick out somebody and say "You come and fight this point; you shall fight it at your own cost?" The House will observe that the Court is to be deprived, apparently, of its usual control and discretion as to who pays the costs—the second Sub-section clearly indicates that—so that the selected person is to fight the issue at his own cost, even if he wins, unless the Central Valuation Committee elect to come forward and help him, but there is no obligation on them to do so. Then, when this opinion has been obtained, whom does it bind? Nobody at all. If people could be bound by decisions when they had not a chance to be heard, it would be an absolute innovation in our law. At any rate, there is nothing here which would make that decision binding upon persons who are not parties to it. As a rule, I do not think there is ever an appeal from a decision given under this consultative jurisdiction of the Courts, and, therefore, a decision is to be given which, I suggest, would bind nobody, and, if it is to bind them, the Clause becomes still more objectionable.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I should like to add my appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment, not merely on my own behalf, but at the special request, by a unanimous decision, on the part of the Council of the Law Society on Friday last. I am not quite sure from the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) was speaking
just now, but I rather gather that he considers that this opinion given by the High Court will bind somebody. Whom is it going to bind?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The hon. Member need not worry.

Mr. HERBERT: Unfortunately, it is our business to worry as to what is the meaning of Acts of Parliament which we pass, and if the right hon. Gentleman says that this opinion is going to bind somebody, I am entitled, as a Member of this House, to know whom he thinks it will bind. If this opinion is to be binding on somebody, is there to be any appeal from the decision of the High Court? There, I do not notice that the Parliamentary Secretary either nods his head or shakes it. As this Clause is drawn, this is to be an opinion of the High Court, which is the Court of first instance and a part of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and if this is to be a decision of the High Court, there should be at least some provision as to what appeal there can be from that decision. May I try and explain the sort of effect of this Clause to a lay mind, without any legal prejudice or any question of what one feels from having been concerned in proceedings before the Courts in the past? Here you get Parliament passing a law, and one of the first necessities of good legislation is that, so far as possible, it should be clear, definite and beyond doubt.
Parliament now proposes to pass a law which enables the Executive Government to do certain things. The Executive Government come to the conclusion that they are not quite sure whether they may do a certain thing. It has been a healthy part of the proceedings of this country in the past that when the Executive Government have been in doubt, they have had to make up their own mind and to so at their own risk, and if they do something which the subject considers is not within their power, the subject has his recourse to the Courts. On many occasions within my lifetime subjects have had such recourse to the Courts, and in many cases they have succeeded; notably, one may mention a certain yellow paper known as Form IV. Now it is proposed that the Executive Government are to do something which, if one may use
schoolboy language, is like sneaking. They are to go privately to the Court and ask the Court to give an opinion such as they wish to have, without any person who is affected by it being necessarily before that Court, putting the case in their own words, and by that means forging what I should describe as a most dishonourable weapon, in order to bully a subject of this country and deprive, him of his ordinary access to the Courts.
If my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say that this is not going to be a decision which is obtained in a sneaking and underhand manner, without hearing the parties in question, of course, the Court has power to hear parties, but I would call his attention to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend just now. The Court may hear such parties as it may choose. How is it to choose, how is it to know the party who ought to be heard, and what guarantee is there that the High Court will choose to hear the party who is really the person most affected? Even if the person most affected does come before the Court in this way, why is he to be dragged there at the instance of an Executive otherwise than under the ordinary procedure in litigation in this country? Why is he to be dragged there in such a way that, however successful he may be, he may not get the ordinary verdict with regard to costs, hut may be left merely with the Central Valuation Committee, in their omniscience and omnipotence, to contribute whatever they may think fit towards his costs? I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider this. I do not want to hold out any threats to him on an occasion of this kind, but if we go to a Division, and he puts the Government Whips on, when the matter has been discussed in a small House of this kind, and we divide against him, we may be very few in numbers, but we shall at least draw attention to this particular Clause in another place, for which some of us may thank God.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House seems to have resolved itself into a committee of lawyers, but, although not a lawyer myself, I have no fears in rising to defend the Clause which has been attacked, because my hon. and learned Friends have, I think, misunderstood the
real purpose of the Clause and the real effect of carrying it into operation. I had best begin by explaining once again to the House what is the object of the Clause which excites so much suspicion and anxiety on the part of my hon. and learned Friends. This is not a question of dragging unwilling litigants into a Court of law; this is a Clause which has been introduced into this Bill at the urgent request of the Central Valuation Committee.

Mr. D. HERBERT: All the more reason for refusing it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand the point of that observation, because the Central Valuation Committee, after all, have no axes of their own to grind. Their sole purpose is to carry out the function with which they have been entrusted by Parliament, and their function is to endeavour to secure uniformity of valuation throughout the country. They have been at work for some little time—over a year—and they have come across one serious difficulty in their task, and that is that different interpretations have been put upon certain existing points of law, and there has been no method by which they could get a binding and final decision upon the true interpretation. It arises in this way: The appeal from the assessment committee lies to Quarter Sessions. There is, of course, an appeal from Quarter Sessions to the High Court, but in the sort of case which the Central Valuation Committee has in mind in asking to have this Clause inserted, the irterests at stake are not sufficiently high to induce those who have appealed from the assessment committee to Quarter Sessions to carry the appeal further. Consequently, the only decisions that have been made are decisions of the Quarter Sessions, and the decisions of one Quarter Sessions are not binding upon any other.
It is because it is important to get a definite authority and a binding decision, which shall be a guide to valuation and assessment committees throughout the country, that this Clause is inserted. I have listened to the speeches that have been made, advocating that this Clause should be withdrawn, but I confess that I have derived very little information from them as to what harm hon. and learned Members think the Clause is
going to do. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) began by saying that this was an absolutely new procedure, and he was rash enough to say that he did not think I could have taken legal advice upon it. I am glad to be able to inform him that I have taken legal advice, and that I have had the advantage of the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in drafting the Clause. Furthermore, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member far Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) there is a precedent. This is not an absolutely new procedure. There was a precedent in the Act of 1888, another in the Act of 1894, and another in a third Act, which, if I remember aright, is the Act of 1899.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain this more fully? He has said there were Advisory Committees set up under the Act of 1888——

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Sir H. SLESSER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The precedent is for asking a High Court to give an opinion on points submitted to it.

Sir H. SLESSER: On fact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Fact and law.

Sir H. SLESSER: It is really material that we should understand what the precedent is.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will read the Section. It is Section 29 of the Local Government Act, 1888:
If any question arises, or is about to arise"—
so that it does not deal only with cases that had actually arisen—
as to whether any business, power, duty, or liability is or not transferred to any county council or joint committee under this Act, that question …. may, on the application of a chairman of quarter sessions, or of the county council, committee, or other local authority concerned, be submitted for decision to the High Court of Justice. …
As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, we do not depend entirely upon precedent, but we give precedents to show that the thing is not new, as hon. Members apparently thought it was. But I submit to the House that what we have to decide is not whether there is a
precedent, but whether the thing we propose is justifiable in itself. I was astonished to hear one hon. and learned Member say that no one can be bound by the opinion of the High Court. Does my hon. and learned Friend say that people who have not actually appeared before the Court are not bound by the decision of the Court?

Sir G. HOHLER: Only to this extent, that one Judge follows the decision of another Judge, but then, of course, you have the right of appeal. Supposing that I am a litigant, and that a decision has been given and I complain that it is wrong, I have got to go to the Court of Appeal before I can get it put right, and then I am bound, if it is my personal lawsuit.

Mr. ATKINSON: You cannot argue it; this opinion could not be used to support a plea of res judicata against any person not party to the proceedings. That is what is meant by being bound by a decision. Anybody whose rights are affected by this opinion will have the, right to re-argue the matter before the Court, and that Court would not necessarily be bound to accept the opinion of the High Court obtained under this Section. A Judge is bound by a decision of the Court of Appeal, but not by a decision of another Judge of first instance. Indeed, Judges frequently differ one from another.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is clear that the opinion of the High Court does not in the least prevent somebody else taking a case, first to the Quarter Sessions, then to the High Court, then to the Appeal Court, and finally to the House of Lords if he chooses, and, of course, the Courts would not be bound by the opinion given by the High Court when a case is stated by the Minister. That, surely, destroys altogether any grievance which has been suggested by hon. and learned Members that the right of appeal is destroyed by this Clause. It is not at all. But if nobody's interests are so vitally affected that he chooses to carry a fresh case up to the High Court, and even above it, then the decision of the High Court stands, and it is just because there are so many cases never carried up to the High Court, that it is found desirable to settle this dubious point in a way that
means the least expenditure of money, friction, trouble and waste of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) spoke of the Central Valuation Committee going to the Court and trying to get their particular views established. There, again, I think that that description is founded upon a wrong impression. You must not think of the Central Valuation Committee as trying to get one particular point of view established. What the Committee are concerned with is to get a point of view established. They may have their own views as to what is the correct one. They can put those views to the Court, but unless they can get contrary views equally well argued before the Court, they will not have established that finality in the matter which it is their object to achieve; it is, therefore, in their own interests to see that a case is properly argued, and that the decision may be considered by all parties as final. It is stated that in this Clause there is no assurance that parties who may be interested in a particular point which is being put up will have an opportunity of being heard. I have been in communication with the Central Valuation Committee on that point, and they have given me three definite assurances—first of all, that when they are thinking of asking the Minister to bring before the High Court any particular points for decision, they will consult the Associations which are interested in the matter, and bring to their notice the fact that they are intending to make this request; secondly, they assure me that they will consult these Associations as to the terms in which the matter shall be submitted; thirdly, that in making any representations under this Sub-section to the Minister, the Committee will endeavour to satisfy the Minister that they have not left out of consideration any association or body who may properly be regarded as being interested in the matter.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he proposes to make those assurances compulsory and binding upon them by amending this Clause in any way?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and learned Friend thinks that the insertion
of specific words in the Clause would make it more acceptable to him, and if he thinks it would make the Clause more certain to operate in the direction in which we intend it to operate, I am quite prepared to move an Amendment in order to put in some such words.

Mr. HERBERT: Personally, I do not think anything of the kind, but I asked the question with a view to drawing the attention of the House to what is, at any rate my opinion, that the assurances are not of very great value to us.

Mr. RYE rose——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Debate is getting a little too conversational.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and learned Friend is not encouraging me to try to meet him in this matter. I was quite prepared to put in some words which I thought might make the assurances which I have conveyed to the House more binding than, perhaps, they might be considered to be if they were merely embodied in the, speech of the Minister. If my hon. and learned Friend does not think it is going to help him, I do not think the House need be asked to consider an Amendment of that kind. I think I have shown, first of all, that there is a good reason for asking that this Clause should be inserted; secondly, that there are precedents for the granting of the powers now asked for; and, thirdly, that no substantial grievance can be felt by any parties about a procedure which is intended, and I believe will work, to save them trouble and expense. Therefore I hope the House will now be prepared to accept the Clause.

Sir H. SLESSER: I confess that I am a little disappointed that when we who practise, however indifferently, in the law, take the trouble to come down here to try to improve a Clause which we believe will prove to be impracticable, we should be twitted by the right hon. Gentleman about, being lawyers. We are interested in the matter, which is essentially a question of legal practice. I should have thought it was the duty of any person who is at all acquainted with the way in which the Courts work, and the difficulties with which they have to contend, to come down and point out to the Minister what in his view is the fatal objection to this
Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has now heard the unanimous opinion of the Law Society, he has heard the opinion of several of His Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and he will now hear the the least of that latter grade of practitioners, who entirely agrees with the views which have been expressed from the other side, that this Clause really is a very great blemish upon this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must really take our objections seriously. There really is a matter of principle at stake in this Clause. It appears now, after some talk about precedents, that the only precedent, alleged precedent, namely the power of reference under the Local Government Act, 1888, with regard to the transference and certain functions of Quarter Sessions was a case entirely different from the case now under consideration.
I am not for one moment saying that the Legislature was wise in inserting even there a power to go to the High Court for an opinion, but, as I understand it, the Court was to be consulted about a specific question, about a specific transference of a specific duty under a specific Act. This Clause, in which an Advisory Committee are asking for an opinion in the air, can scarcely be likened to a case where the parties are actually concerned with the specific transference of a specific duty. It now appears that there really is no precedent at all, and, indeed, when we conic to look into the matter, it is not very surprising. Very little reference so far has been made to this Central Valuation Committee, which is to seek the opinion of the High Court. Its functions and its constitution are described in Section 57 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. We find that it is a body advisory in character, which is to
Take into consideration the operation of this Act, and shall give to the Minister such information and make to him such representations in respect thereto as they may consider desirable for promoting uniformity and removing inequalities in the system of valuation.
Let the House be clear about that. The body with which we are concerned is not going to perform any executive functions at all. It is itself merely an advisory body. This body, which is merely advisory, if it comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law has arisen on valuation, may, instead of
letting that question of law be determined in the normal and ordinary way, through the normal channels of the Courts, apply to the Courts for a statement of the law. In the ordinary way facts are found in a specific case, they go to Quarter Sessions, a case is stated, and the normal procedure of the law as it has existed for the last 100, 200 or 300 years, is followed, that is to say, a Court of Law, with Judges fitted to deal with the matter, having before them certain facts, apply the law to the facts and come to a particular conclusion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What if the parties do not go to the High Court?

Sir H. SLESSER: I am going to deal with that. It is an amazing proposition, and I will deal now with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. What if they do not go to the High Court? How far is this idea to be carried? Is it to be suggested that whenever there is any doubt which perplexes any Government Department or even some amorphous body advising a Government Department, and certain individuals do not go to the Courts, that we are going to set up a new system of jurisprudence. Is this the forerunner of general applications by the War Office, the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, and the Treasury whenever they cannot get two litigants to litigate, to ask the Courts for an opinion? It is because of the novelty of the whole theory of this matter that we are pressing this point to-night. This is something entirely new and, we believe, entirely objectionable. Because the litigants in a particular case do not contest the matter, this Advisory Committee, which is not even a body hearing appeals itself. but is merely to advise the Minister, is to be given power to go to the High Court to ask for its advice. Advice on what?
Let us take the case of specific persons who complain of the assessment made upon them, or of some incident in the valuation. Is that point to be brought to the Court as a specific matter, or is this Central Advisory Committee itself to invent a difficulty and then ask the High Court what it means? About what is its opinion to be sought? It is not to be an opinion about a specific problem arising between two litigants, because
there are no litigants. We want to know, and I think the Judges of the High Court will want to know, on what is their opinion to be expressed. The Courts have always declined to give opinions unless they are based on specific facts. I exclude myself, but there are some hon. Members present who know more about this particular matter even than the right hon. Gentleman himself, and suggest that he should ask any lawyer in this House or in another place—because he will certainly be told there what they think about this Clause, even if we cannot prevail here—what is the fundamental basis on which all adjudication proceeds. He will be told that the Courts have always declined to express an opinion on a matter of theory and generality, and have always based their decisions on a concrete question of fact. Although the machinery of the Courts to-day under Order 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, provide that a declaration as to rights may, in fact, be made in certain cases, the Courts will never grant such a declaration "in the air," but will only grant it in concrete cases, where concrete rights are in issue. The right hon. Gentleman has come here to-night and asked the House to agree to something which is entirely novel, and, as we believe, entirely vicious. The High Court is to be asked for an opinion by this advisory body.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not by the advisory body.

Sir H. SLESSER: No, the Minister asks on the petition of the advisory body. I will read the words:
If on the representation of the Central Valuation Committee it is made to appear to the Minister of Health that a substantial question of law has arisen, the Minister may submit a question.
Clearly, the Minister cannot act upon his own motion until the Central Valuation Committee have satisfied themselves on the point. With every respect for the right hon. Gentleman, in such a case he will be merely a go-between. Let us assume that the Minister goes to the High Court, and that he goes there because the Central Valuation Committee have asked that an opinion on a certain point shall be obtained. What he is really doing is going to the Court to ask for something in the form of a thesis
like those which used to be drawn up in the Middle Ages. I can imagine some of our Judges with a case of this kind before them. They will at once say to the Minister, "What are we to say in regard to this application? Where are the facts?—Where is the case stated upon which we have always been taught to base our opinions. There is no material here upon which we can proceed."
Whatever reasons may have induced hon. Members to compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon this Clause, I can imagine what some of the Judges of the High Courts will say when they come to interpret it. Suppose they are asked to give an opinion on an abstract proposition such as will be raised under this Clause. Supposing a litigant does move and proceeds in a recognised way and takes a specific case to the High Court to get an opinion on the facts. Supposing that decision does not agree with the legal opinion first given to the Minister through the Central Advisory Committee. Just observe the confusion in which the Minister will find himself. The High Court has given a certain view of the law. In another case, the High Court, acting on facts, may possibly give a different opinion upon different facts. Which of those decisions is going to be considered as valid by the Minister? It may be that, instead of the litigant following the general practice, the question will work the other way about. The litigant may start first, get his decision in the High Court, and possibly the Minister may not like that decision. I would like to know whether under those circumstances the Central Valuation Committee could then ask the Minister to get another decision which would over-ride the opinion obtained by a particular litigant. If the Minister acted strictly in regard to these matters, he would probably deprive the litigant of his right if the appeal is to be made through the Courts under the ordinary procedure of the law. The two decisions I have mentioned are completely unrelated to each other. It is said that the litigant may proceed to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, but apparently there would be no appeal under this Clause beyond the High Court, because the Judicature Act which gives the right to go to the Court
of Appeal in ordinary cases would not apply. Therefore, the final opinion would be in the High Court, although another opinion might be obtained by an individual litigant which might go to the House of Lords.
Does the Minister of Health or the Central Valuation Committee think they are going to be assisted by such a Clause as this? As so often happens, this is a case where we lawyers are the watchdogs of the liberty of the subject against the Government. Is it not obvious that this Clause has not been properly thought out? There are other minor reasons for coming to the same conclusion. For example, the Minister has forgotten the ordinary rules regulating these cases. Supposing you want to go to the High Court, this Clause does not say how you are to get there. The Minister of Health must know that to give a right of access to legal tribunals there must exist the necessary machinery. It is obvious that the ordinary rules of the Courts dealing with litigation between party and party cannot apply in cases under this Clause. I look in vain for any power in this Bill to make Rules of Court. I doubt whether there is any method provided by which they can get to the High Court at all. Has the Minister to proceed by writ or summons, or by motion? How does he get to the Court at all? We do not know, and I do not think the Minister of Health knows. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say he may submit the question to the High Court, but he does not say by what machinery or by what method this can be done. Where are the rights of opponents to the Minister's contention safeguarded? For these reasons, I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), which will give him an opportunity of looking into the matter again. Otherwise, probably we may be able to persuade those in another place to reject this Clause. I hope the Government will not use the machinery of the Party Whips to pass an unintelligible and vicious; Clause of this kind, which most hon. Members do not understand. I hope the Clause will not be forced through the House because somebody in a Government Department thinks it would
be convenient for the Minister or Advisory Committee to have powers which it lacks at present, without regard to the rights of the subject.

Mr. WITHERS: I support this Amendment, because I believe this particular Clause is entirely unnecessary. There is no reason whatever why these cases of law and practice should not be decided in the ordinary way. If the Minister of Health would provide that the Central Valuation Committee should bear the expense of getting these test cases decided I might support such a proposal. The Clause as it stands is an innovation; it is unnecessary and is a very great mistake. Suppose it is applied to other questions? Take, for example, taxation. Are we going to have the Treasury applying to the High Court for directions as to how they are to apply their taxes under the Statute? I think hon. Members will agree that such a course would be a gross interference with the liberty of the subject. Everybody ought to be entitled to go freely before the Courts and get justice. The same argument would apply to the Penal Statutes. Are we going to have people going to the Court and saying, "How are we to interpret. this penal Statute?" Is the House of Commons going to depute this right of making laws to a purely arbitrary decision without any question of fact being argued on one side or the other? The thing has only to be stated to be shown to be ridiculous, and I shall certainly oppose the Clause.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I must confess to a good deal of diffidence in rising to address the House on this subject after six or seven legal Members have expressed their opinions. I sympathise with the object of this proposal. We all know that in the past it has been difficult to know how a particular point of rating would be treated by the Courts, because cases arise in connection with very small matters, and go, perhaps, as far as the Court of Quarter Sessions, but it is very rarely that litigants care to take the matter further. The consequence is that you get no real body of law, and no help on any of these matters. For instance, the difficulties owing to the great variety of practice in different parts of the country with regard to the rating of machinery have been largely due to the
fact that there has been no method by which a decision by a Court of Law could be obtained.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Surely, my hon. Friend is aware that several cases have been taken to the House of Lords?

Sir P. PILDITCH: I am not speaking of individual cases, but there have been tremendous variations in the way in which machinery has been dealt with, and, although cases have gone to the House of Lords, that does not mean that all the points that may arise have gone to the House of Lords. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the Government that the method they have adopted would, as it stands, produce the desired effect of getting a really valuable judgment in some of these cases. It is almost a pity that this matter has been argued on the root-and-branch Amendment which we are now discussing. I wish it could have been taken on one or other of the Amendments which follow. It, seems to me to be very unfortunate that the only body that can start an inquiry of this kind should be the Central Valuation Committee. I do not see why the power of initiation, at any rate so far as going to the Ministry is concerned, should not have been given to other parties or organisations, so that the matter might be set going, not by this bureaucratic body alone, but by any party who may be interested.
In the second place, I do not think you are likely to get absolute justice or really sound, valuable judgments with the provisions as they stand in this proposal with regard to costs. If it is left entirely to the ipse dixit of the Central Valuation Committee, without any appeal either to the Minister or to a Court of Law, I think it will very rarely be found that a person with some real knowledge of the point at issue will undertake the starting of litigation and incur the costs, unless he knows that he is going to get proper assistance with regard to costs. Unless the Clause is amended to some extent, it will not have the result that is desired by the Ministry. It would have been more satisfactory if the Minister could have started the discussion on this root-and-branch Amendment with a statement that he was going to meet these points, in addition to those to which he has
referred already. I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) did not close with the Minister when he had the chance of getting something of that kind settled, but I hope it will be taken into account. If, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, he says that he is going to meet these different points at a later stage, I shall vote with the Government, but, if he cannot give me that assurance, I must reserve my right to take other action.

Mr. RYE: I rise to support the Amendment, because I have consistently objected to this Clause, both on the Second Reading and in Committee. I do not think that the Clause is required or is reasonable. It certainly cannot be reasonable when there is no assurance beyond the pious statement of the Central Valuation Committee that they will bring interested parties into the proceedings. I should like to ask the Minister how the Central Valuation Committee can possibly bind their successors. It is true that the Committee for the time being may act up to all their assurances and promises, and bring into the proceedings a third party who may be interested and concerned; but what about the Central Valuation Committee 10 years hence? They may not think the same, and may not consider it necessary to bring other interested parties into the proceedings. I would ask the Minister to consider that point, and also to tell me where the costs are coming from. There is a reference here to the Central Valuation Committee having the right at their option, if they think fit, to contribute towards the costs of the parties who have been before the Court to argue to the contrary. I confess that I have forgotten certain of the Clauses in that very long Measure, the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, but I have no recollection of any Clause which provides the necessary funds out of which the Committee could pay any costs. Assuming, however, that they have that power, and assuming that there are funds out of which to pay costs, surely, in common justice, anyone who appears in these proceedings to argue to the contrary should have his or her costs as a matter of right, and not as a matter of discretion or option or sweet will on the part of the Central Valuation Committee.
One of my fundamental objections to this Clause is that there is nothing making it obligatory on the Minister to bring any interested party into these proceedings, and, in the absence of some person who would be affected, a decision may be given on facts which may not have been properly or adequately brought before the Court. That is manifestly unfair, and on that ground alone I respectfully suggest to the House that this Amendment ought to be supported. I do not think that there is any precedent, and I respectfully differ from the Parliamentary Secretary on that point. I would like to ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary if they have considered the decision in the case of the Cardigan County Council where, on a question of by-laws—I think I am stating this correctly—they were in doubt as to the effect of certain by-laws and went to the Court for a decision. Mr. Danckwerts, who was a very well known and talented gentleman of great persuasive powers, addressed the Court, but the Court would have nothing, to do with his submission. The Judge said that he was there not to deal with abstract questions, but with questions of fact which had arisen and upon which they had come to ask his decision; and the Cardigan County Council were kicked out of Court and no order was made as regards costs.
What is going to happen to the right hon. Gentleman if he gets this Clause and it becomes part of an Act of Parliament? Suppose that the same thing happens as in the case of the Cardigan County Council, and the Judge says: "Abstract questions! I am not concerned with these; you all go away again, you and your Central Valuation Committee"; and possibly he may say also—it would be a dreadful possibility—"Some of you who have come here will have to pay out of your own pockets the costs of the person whom you have brought here." That would be a dreadful possibility, particularly if the order were made against the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not know how near we shall get to that pleasing possibility, but, if we do reach it, I suggest that we shall not have so many of these novel proposals put before the House of Commons. I suggest, further, that when a large body of persons who make their living by the law, and, presumably, know something about
it, tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong, on another occasion he may consider there is something in what they say, and he may not be quite so unbending as he is now.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) described the Clause as unnecessary. I will not go quite so far as that, because I think I understand what the Minister has in mind in asking for these powers, but, while I do not think it is unnecessary, I think it is very impracticable. The Minister is involving himself in difficulties which really he need not bring upon himself if he would only take time to reconsider the Clause. At present, it is really unsatisfactory. In the first place, the Minister cannot move at all unless representations are made to him by the Central Valuation Committee. The Central Valuation Committee must not only make representations to him, but those representations must be such that. they will have the effect that
it is made to appear to the Minister.
That is rather a novel phrase to use, that something is going to be done by a committee, the result of which is that
it is made to appear to the Minister … that a substantial question of law has arisen.
That is a very unsatisfactory state in which to leave it. I do not think it is right to leave the matter in such a state that first of all the Minister has to be satisfied, and satisfied merely on representations made to him by one interested party to the proceedings, namely, the Central Valuation Committee. Then it is equally vague in the last passage, where it says:
The High Court, after hearing such parties as it thinks proper.
There is no provision at all, as far as I can see, as to how you are to get to the High Court, to begin with. Are there any Regulations, or is there any power in the Ministry to make Regulations, whereby they or anyone else can go to the Court and ask for a vague declaration on a statement of alleged facts? The right hon. Gentleman is introducing something into an Act of Parliament which would make it the subject of ridicule.

9.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: The speech we have just heard was not directed to the
deletion of the Clause but was a criticism as to whether it will be operative or not. The question before the House is whether the Clause shall be deleted. Later on, we shall have to discuss certain Amendments which raise certain points which have been referred to. I can assure the hon. Member that if the procedure in this Clause is not sufficient, and it is necessary to insert an Amendment incorporating powers to make rules, that shall be done. I do not think anyone need feel any misgiving that if the Minister states a case the court will not consider it, and I do not propose to devote any time to the suggestion of my hon. Friend behind me, that if the Minister goes to the Court the Court will turn the parties away and will have nothing to do with it. I do not think that is worthy of consideration at this time. The real issue that the House has to face is this. Anyone who has had any experience of present conditions in connection with rating and valuation, must be aware that they are unsatisfactory. I can speak from my own knowledge of certain instances where there are differing interpretations, in some cases by assessment committees and in others by quarter sessions, and where, owing to the cost involved, the parties concerned are not prepared to take the case further and incur the considerable expense of solicitors, counsel and King's Counsel which would be involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has spoken about people not having any knowledge of the matter. Anyone who has any knowledge of the present conditions as regards rating and valuation knows that that is the state of affairs at present, and that is the state of affairs which we are seeking to remedy in this Clause, namely, that in a very large number of cases which from time to time arise, it is not worth the cost of taking an expensive case against the Assessment Committee, who may take it to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords and expect the parties to bear the expense that may be involved. That is the issue the House has to face. This Clause, though it may not be satisfactory to all those engaged in the legal profession, is a satisfactory, cheap, and convenient means, which will not put the people in-
volved to considerable cost but will get principles of law quickly and easily decided. It is a scandal, in my opinion, that under the existing law it should have to depend on whether a man is prepared to go to all the cost of litigation and follow it up to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

An HON. MEMBER: May I point out that it is not the litigant under the Clause at all. He can never go to the Court except as a party to an action. It is the Committee, if the Minister approves.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend, but I do not agree with him at all. If a decision has been given by the High Court on a case stated by the Minister, it will be of great value to everyone concerned with the matter. I cannot conceive for a moment that the only people who are going to receive any assistance from the decision of the High Courts are the Assessment Committees. I do not know whether this is a matter that is causing any anxiety or trouble to any of my hon. and learned Friends, but in future when a decision is given by the Court on a case which has been stated by the Minister of Health, the people who are concerned in the matter will be able to read it. They will know the decision that has been given, and, in the light of that decision, they will decide whether they are going to embark upon expensive litigation or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite talked about the freedom of the subject. It reminded me of the days when he talked about the freedom of the subject in connection with the Trade Disputes Act and when he just as dogmatically laid down the law as he has done to-night, and with about as much success. There is no question of interfering with the freedom of the subject. If any person is not satisfied with the decision given by the High Court on a case stated by my right hon. Friend, he can say the decision is incorrect and can take it right up to the highest Court of the land.

Sir H. SLESSER: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is any right of appeal?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows I was not making that suggestion. I was saying that if a person wants to go into litigation on an opinion
expressed by the Court on a case which has been stated by the Minister of Health, he is not bound by the decision, but he can pursue the matter and can go to the Court of Appeal and can say, "This decision of the Divisional Court does not apply to me; there is a different set of facts altogether," or, secondly, he can say the decision of the Divisional Court is wrong. It is perfectly ludicrous to suggest that the liberty of the subject is being interfered with in this way. The Courts are open to anybody, and anyone who is dissatisfied with any case which has been stated in this particular way, and with any decision which has been given, can go to the very highest Courts of the land and have the matter decided there. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume that there is some suggestion in this Clause that the liberty of the subject—these were the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman—is being interfered with——

Sir H. SLESSER: Under the right hon. Member's administration it is necessary.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on this occasion. The Courts are open to anyone. If it be said that a decision which has been given is wrong, every lawyer in this House knows that it can be tested still further.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: You state a case in your own favour.

Sir K. WOOD: I used to be a member of what is called the lower branch of the law, and it interests me to hear propositions put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley).

Sir H. CAUTLEY: If my right hon. Friend speaks of a case being stated, he ought to know that a case stated is not stated by a litigant, but that it is stated by the Court.

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly, and my hon. and learned Friend has failed here again.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: You state your own case.

Sir K. WOOD: I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite suggest that it was the Central Valuation Committee that was going to the Court.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that the Minister was merely an instrument and could only act on representation from the Central Valuation Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: That was the second inaccuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because if he looks at the Clause he will see that the Minister has to be satisfied that there is a substantial question of law.

Sir H. SLESSER: What I said was that the Minister cannot move unless the Central Valuation Committee make representation.

Sir K. WOOD: That is the third inaccuracy of the hon. and learned Member. He said that the Minister of Health was a mere instrument, and I am endeavouring to dispose of that suggestion. The Clause reads:
If on the representation of the Central Valuation Committee it is made to appear to the Minister of Health that a substantial question of law has arisen.
Therefore, the Central Valuation Committee cannot merely place a case before the Minister and say that it has to go to the Court. The Minister of Health has to be satisfied that a substantial question of law has arisen. Under the law at the present time questions of difficulty have arisen in which varying decisions have been given by Quarter Sessions. I suggest to the House that, without considering what is going to happen in another place, and matters of that kind which are not relevant, this is a very useful Clause by which a cheap and expeditious way is found of obtaining decisions upon matters of difficulty, and upon which contrary decisions have been arrived at at various Quarter Sessions. It will be extremely useful in that way. When we come to the question of amendments, and as to who are the parties, and matters of that sort, we will, of course, consider them on their merits. I will repeat the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made as regards the exact action which the Central Valuation Committee undertake in consulting with the principal associated bodies up and down the country.

Sir P. PILDITCH: Under the three heads.

Sir K. WOOD: Under the three heads. I know my hon. Friend is associated with
one of the principal bodies in that connection. An hon. Friend behind said. that it is no good the Central Valuation Committee giving that undertaking to-day; their personnel may be changed to-morrow. He has forgotten that the Central Valuation Committee have to come to my right hon. Friend and ask for a case to be stated. Whatever the personnel of the Committee may be for the time being, if the undertaking is given in the House of Commons——

Mr. RYE: It is a question of cost.

Sir K. WOOD: I am going to continue my statement. I am not dealing with the statement of cost.

Mr. RYE: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me.

Sir K. WOOD: My answer is that, although the personnel of the Committee may change, if an undertaking be given in this House, naturally, and quite properly, my right hon. Friend will see that it is properly observed in every case whatever the personnel of the Committee may be. We can deal with the question of costs when we come to the Amendments. We are dealing with the question as to whether the Clause shall be deleted or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think it is my duty to point out that an Amendment which would impose additional cost on the ratepayers in some form or other is out of order on the Report stage.

Sir K. WOOD: Then I do not. propose to address myself to a matter which is out of order. Suggestions have been made for the first time that the Central Valuation Committee is a bureaucratic committee. What foundation is there for that statement? The Central Valuation Committee has been made up of representatives up and down the country who have taken a very large amount of interest and have worked very hard in connection with rating and valuation questions for many years. Why should they for a moment, because they are formed into a Committee, be termed bureaucratic? I have heard it said that people who have had experience of rating and valuation questions are the people whose opinions ought to be valued by this
House. It is purely at the request of the Central Valuation Committee that my right hon. Friend has adopted this proposal. They came to him and expressed very strongly the difficulty in which everybody found themselves in connection with a matter of this kind, as to how there were varying decisions and as to how it was difficult to promote uniformity, and pointed out that it was only right and just that there should be some decision on these particular matters, so that everybody could be treated fairly and justly. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has inserted this Clause in the Bill, and I feel very strongly indeed that it will be a very useful addition to the Statute law and, at the same time, an easy, cheap and expeditious method of getting some of these matters settled.

Mr. D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. I would like a ruling on the last part of this Clause, where provision is made that
The Central Valuation Committee may, … if they think fit so to do, contribute such amount as they think proper towards the costs of any persons appearing, etc.
The Bill does not say, as far as I can see, where those moneys are to come from. In the absence of some definite evidence that these costs are to be provided otherwise than out of moneys provided by Parliament, is not this a provision which requires a financial resolution?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That may be so, but that point ought to have been taken before. From my reading of the Clause, if they think fit to contribute towards such costs they would charge the amount on the ratepayers of the county. That would be the presumption. Of course, it might be possible for some ratepayer, later on, to take the point before the Courts, and, if the contribution was not explicitly provided for in the Bill, the Clause would lapse.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of Order. May I explain that the funds at the disposal of the Central Valuation Committee are funds voluntarily supplied by various local authorities in the country, and all that this Clause provides is that if they think fit to contribute to certain costs out of these voluntarily provided funds, they may do so.

Mr. HERBERT: I have here the Section under which these funds are provided. I take it that this is the Section to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
Any rating authority, county valuation Committee or Assessment Committee may subject to the provisions of the scheme, make contributions towards the expenses of the Central Valuation Committee.
Far from that being a case of moneys provided by the people who——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's point on the Clause is out of order now. I think the words in the Clause must stand.

Mr. HERBERT: Then I take your ruling to be that whatever there may be in my point, it is too late to raise it now?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. HERBERT: In those circumstances, it merely means that the power to pay these costs will not exist.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: When you called the Parliamentary Secretary to order for trespassing rather too near a subsequent Amendment, I understood you to say that that Amendment, so far as it relates to costs, would be out of order. May I submit that if this power

is to remain in Sub-section (2), enabling the Central Valuation Committee to contribute towards the costs, it be in order to discuss the Amendments on the Paper which deal with that specific point, later on?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the whole point is the difference between "may" and "shall." I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is at the present time a fund which is voluntarily contributed, and the words of the Clause provide that contributions towards costs may be made out of that fund. The Amendment on the Paper says that contributions shall be made out of that fund. Possibly such contributions might use up the fund, and in order to pay the contributions the county ratepayers would have to be resorted to. What the right hon. Gentleman put before me is a new point; but I think, on the face of it, that I have drawn a proper inference from the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'it' in line 41, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 258 Noes, 34.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[9.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Flelden, E. B.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Finburgh, S.


Albery, Irving James
Cape, Thomas
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Carver, Major W. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forrest, W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent"l)
Charleton, H. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Christle, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ammon, Charles George
Clayton, G. C.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cluse, W. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baker, Walter
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Glbbins, Joseph


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, A.
Connolly, M.
Grace, John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenall, T.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Berry, Sir George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crawfurd, H. E.
Groves, T.


Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grundy, T. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hanbury, C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Dixey, A. C.
Hardle, George D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Drewe, C.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brocklebank, C. E. R
Dunnico, H.
Hayes, John Henry


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd. Hexham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf"d,Henley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
England, Colonel A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-g.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Burman, J. B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hills, Major John Waller


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hilton, Cecil


Hirst, G. H.
Montague, Frederick
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smithers, Waidron


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Snell, Harry


Hopkins, J. W. W
Murnin, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Lieut-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh"n)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Huntingfield, Lord
Palin, John Henry
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Paling, W.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Penny, Frederick George
Tasker, R. Inigo.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Perring, William George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchall


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Philipson, Mabel
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pilcher, G.
Townend, A. E.


Kennedy, T.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kirkwood, D.
Potts,John S.
Varley, Frank B.


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lansbury, George
Raine, Sir Walter
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lee, F.
Ramsden, E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lindley, F. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warrender, Sir victor


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Remer, J. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rentoul, G. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Long, Major Eric
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Looker, Herbert William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watts, Dr. T.


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Riley, Ben
Welsh, J. C.


Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Whiteley, W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Ropner, Major L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mackinder, W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Scrymgeour, E.
Womersley, W. J.


Malone, C. L"Estrange (N'thampton)
Scurr, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sexton, James
Wragg, Herbert


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Maxton, James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Merriman, F. B.
Shepperson, E. W.



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sitch, Charles H.
Captain Viscount Curzon and




Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Atkinson, C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stamford, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Bromley, J.
Lowth, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
March, S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Compton, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Withers, John James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Rye, F. G.
Sir Henry Cautley and Sir Malcolm


Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Macnaghten.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after the word "Committee," to insert the words "or of any other body or person."
An offer was made by the Minister that he would insert in this Clause certain provisions making it obligatory on the Central Valuation Committee to consult such bodies as may be interested in this question. There are a good many

bodies of different sorts up and down the country which are very interested in the rating question. The question is a difficult one, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree it is in the interests of all parties to see that the decisions in the different parts of the country are uniform. I would, therefore, ask the Minister, in accordance with the offer which he made, to insert this provision.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion. I think the particular Amendment which he has put down would really not be effective in practice, because, after all, it is not only "any other body or person," but the Valuation Committee which is interested in uniformity of valuation. The purpose of the Clause, as I have already stated, is not to get established a particular uniformity but merely to get a decision on doubtful points. if we had power for any other bodies and persons to apply to the Minister as he suggests, what would happen would he that the Minister would simply refer the application to the Central Valuation Committee to get their views as to any substantial point of law which had in fact arisen. That being so, it would really come back to exactly the same procedure as in the Clause. In response to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's invitation, I am quite prepared to put in an Amendment which would meet the case that he has in mind. I think it would come in at the place we have now reached. Therefore, if my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment, I will move afterwards an Amendment in the sense indicated.

Captain BOURNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after the word "Committee," to insert the words
made after consultation with such associations or bodies as appear to them to be concerned.
These words follow the precedent in another Act, and I think will meet the case.

Miss WILKINSON: Would there be any safeguard so that all the associations concerned would be consulted? Obviously, they might consult the ratepayers' association and not a body representing the other side of the case, and would there be a guarantee that every type of body would be consulted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A little earlier in the evening, before the hon. Member was in the House, I said I had every assurance from the Central Valuation
Committee that they would consult all the associations which were concerned and that they would satisfy the Minister that they had not missed out anybody. I may add that, as far as I am concerned as Minister, I certainly should not be satisfied unless the Central Valuation Committee were able to assure me that in fact no association or body, on any point of law, had been omitted from the consultation.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RYE:

In page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) For the purposes of such proceedings the Minister shall appoint some person or persons, corporation, or association to appear on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention, and the person, persons, or corporation or association so appointed shall have the same rights of appeal from any judgment or order made thereat as would have existed had the hearing been the trial of an action between the parties. All the costs, both party and party and solicitor and client, of the person or persons, corporation or association so appearing as aforesaid at the hearing or on appeal shall be paid by the County Valuation Committee.
(3)Any person or persons, corporation, or association claiming to be interested in any such hearing or in any appeal therefrom shall be entitled. but at their own expense, to appear and be heard on the hearing or on any appeal.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) is, as I have indicated, not in order.

Mr. RYE: May I ask for a ruling as to whether the Amendment would be in order if I eliminated the words after the word "parties" in line 6 to the end of Sub-section (2)? I understand there is a technical objection to this Amendment on the ground that it would impose financial burdens on the ratepayers. If that be so, I suggest that by eliminating all reference to the cost, the first part would be in order, and so also would be Sub-section (3).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it would be in order. The objection to the Amendment as it stands is that it puts a charge on the rates, which is not in order on Report stage.If the last
sentence of Sub-section (2) was cut out, that objection would no longer hold good.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) For the purposes of such proceedings the Minister shall appoint some person or persons, corporation, or association to appear on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention, and the person, persons, or corporation or association so appointed shall have the same rights of appeal from any judgment or order made thereat as would have existed had the hearing been the trial of an action between the parties.
(3) Any person or persons, corporation, or association claiming to be interested in any such hearing or in any appeal therefrom shall be entitled, but at their own expense, to appear and he heard on the hearing or on any appeal.
I wish to ensure that some persons representing ratepayers who will be affected by any intended decision of the Court should have the right to be parties to the proceedings. As the Clause is drawn there is no certainty that such persons will have any such right, and although the Minister of Health has stated that the Central Valuation Committee have to give him assurances, and that as long as he is Minister of Health, which I hope may be for the next 20 years, he will see that any interested parties are joined as respondents, I suggest that it would be far more satisfactory to the ratepayers if it was made obligatory on the Minister to appoint some person or persons, corporation or association, to appear on the hearing "for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in view of what he said in the Committee stage. In column 12 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, when he was dealing with objections I had taken to Clause 4, he made the following statement:
What the Central Valuation Committee are concerned to do is to get a final ruling. Unless the case has been properly argued there will be, obviously, no satisfaction that it has been finally settled, and the object of the Central Valuation Committee will not be achieved. Therefore, I think he may take it that they will take whatever steps may be necessary and are in their power to take to see that the High Court before pronouncing upon a case stated by the Minister, has all the relevant facts and arguments before it. For that purpose they will take
care that the contention opposed to that which they themselves favour is specially represented, and if necessary they will pay the costs or contribute to the costs of the person appearing to support that view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing, Committee O), 8th March, 1928; col. 12.]
If that was the right hon. Gentleman's view on the Committee, I feel sure that it is his view now. If it was his desire that some persons should be joined in the proceedings for the expressed purposes of arguing the contrary contention, I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment. It would then be obligatory on the Minister to appoint come person or persons, corporation or association to appear in the proceedings, and unless that is put into the Bill, the position, from the point of view of the ratepayers. would not be satisfactory.

Mr. G. HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment
I have listened with considerable interest to the various remarks of lawyers on all sides of the House, and I take it that the answer made by the Minister to the hon. and learned Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) means that he is prepared to make some concession The Amendment seems to me to meet the suggestions that have been made
already.

Sir K. WOOD: The Amendment of the hon. Member deals with the Sub-section of this Clause which sets out the procedure to be adopted when the Minister of Health is agreed that a case should be stated on a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court.
In Sub-section (2) it is set forth that the Central Valuation Committee may appear for the purpose of supporting any contention with respect to the question at issue and it goes on to say—they
may, if they think lit so to do, contribute such amount as they think proper towards the costs of any persons appearing on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention.
This is not so much an issue to be fought out between parties as to obtain the opinion of the Court upon a substantial question of law, and it is provided that the Central Valuation Committee, whose funds are purely voluntary, may, if they think fit, contribute to the costs of any person they may desire to appear before
the Court to argue the contrary contention. The hon. Member suggests in his Amendment that:
For the purposes of such proceedings the Minister shall appoint some person or persons, corporation, or association to appear on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention, and the person, persons, or corporation or association so appointed shall have the same rights of appeal from any judgment or order made thereat as would have existed had the hearing been the trial of an action between the parties.
In other words, my right hon. Friend is to appoint some body to appear and argue the contrary contention. Who is going to pay the costs? My right hon. Friend may say to the association of which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) is so distinguished an ornament, "I will appoint you," and the case may go right to appeal and to the House of Lords. It is quite impossible for the Minister to appoint some body or persons to appear in an action like this and make no provision for their costs. It is quite impossible to proceed on those lines. Any association or person may say, "It is all very well for you to appoint me, but what about my costs?" They may say, "You are a fine Minister of Health to suggest that I should appear, but I must absolutely decline if you do not make any provision for my costs." I am afraid the suggestion is impracticable.

Mr. RYE: That is perfectly true, but on the other hand, Sub-section (2) of the Clause stands; and under that Sub-section, the Central Valuation Committee may, if they think fit,
contribute such amount as they may think proper towards the costs of any persons appearing on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention.
It seems to me inconceivable that if the Minister has appointed some person or corporation, and that person or corporation has undertaken the burden, the Central Valuation Committee——

Mr. SCURR: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to speak a second time on this Amendment?

Mr. RYE: I moved the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member who moves an Amendment is entitled to make a second speech on the Report stage.

Mr. RYE: I shall not delay the House much longer. I merely emphasise the fact that it does lie within the province of the Central Valuation Committee to pay costs. It is true that, for the purpose of bringing my Amendment into order, I struck out the reference to payment of costs, but that does not do away with the fact that the Central Valuation Committee has a perfect right to award costs out of the funds at its disposal. It is impossible for me to suppose that if the Minister appointed some one to argue to the contrary, and that person has appeared in Court, and put forward an argument, the Central Valuation Committee would turn round and say, "We are not going to contribute any costs." At all events it would be for the person concerned to decide whether he would undertake the duty. It might very well be that he would say, "I do not like the look of this. I might have to pay the costs, and I shall not take the risk." On the other hand, there are sportsmen in the world who would make a sporting venture. They might go to the Central Valuation Committee and say, "We take it from you as an honourable Committee that you will see us properly protected in the way of costs if we undertake this task." Therefore, I think that the bogy set up by the Parliamentary Secretary is not very formidable after all. At all events, I think the chance will be taken, and it does not make very much difference to my Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I think my hon. Friend might be satisfied with the Clause as it is now drawn, which says that the Central Valuation Committee have power to contribute to the costs. It does not say that the Committee shall pay all the costs. It may be that they would make a bargain with the people who appear on the other side, because they are limited as regards funds. Their resources are obtained by voluntary means. The whole case of the hon. Member is met in the way I have indicated, namely, that the Central Valuation Committee, whose only anxiety is not to contest the case but to get uniformity, have power to contribute such amount as they think proper towards the costs. I think that on examining the Clause, my hon. Friend will find all that he requires in Subsection (2).

Sir H. SLESSER: I shall support the Minister and oppose this Amendment, and my reason for doing so is the same reason as moved me on a previous occasion to oppose a new Clause. I object to these new and untried and, as I think, unsuitable innovations in our legal procedure. I have never heard of a case where a Minister or any other person, a party to any suit, can appoint some other person to act for him, as is suggested here. Suppose that the other person does not wish to act. I agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that the Clause is very difficult to work and that he is trying to find some way out of the difficulty. He must agree, however, that to give to a Minister power to appoint someone else to argue a point of law which he may never want to argue at all cannot be a practicable way of dealing with the matter. Who are these persons, or corporations, or associations? Suppose that the Minister were to appoint the hon. Member—he is a person—to appear at a hearing for the purpose of supporting a contrary contention. Would he have to act or not? If he refused, would the Minister go to the Court for a mandamus to compel him to argue the contrary contention? The whole Amendment is quite impracticable, and, much as I dislike the whole Clause, I have a still stronger objection to these innovations in our legal procedure.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe that the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 4, line 11, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit so to do," and to insert instead thereof the words
shall in any case in which a question is submitted to the High Court by the Minister under Sub-section (1) of this Section"—
has been dealt with by my predecessor in the Chair.

Captain BOURNE: To which of these Amendments does that statement refer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member. I understood it was ruled out of order because it would involve a charge.

Captain BOURNE: On a point of Order. I understand that the fund
referred to is raised entirely by voluntary subscriptions, and that if the fund were exhausted the Central Valuation Committee would have no power to make a charge on the ratepayers.

Mr. SPEAKER: As there appears to be some doubt about it, the hon. and gallant Member must have the benefit of it.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, to leave out the words, "may, if they think fit so to do," and to insert instead thereof the words:
Shall in any case in which a question is submitted to the High Court by the Minister under Sub-section (1) of this Section.
The object of this Amendment is to carry out or to make a little more clear the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading of this Bill. My hon. Friend then said:
By this means neither the ratepayer nor the authority is put to any expense.
I understand that this Clause, on which we have had a great deal of discussion to-night, is intended to enable the Central Valuation Committee, if necessary, to put a test case up to the High Court. where that case involves a substantial point of law. Although we have heard a great many learned gentlemen, what we have heard has revealed extraordinary little experience of rating cases. A large proportion of rating cases refer to only small amounts. The total sums involved are not large, although the principles involved are very important. It is of great importance that in any such test case that is taken the unfortunate man who is concerned should be sure of receiving a contribution towards his costs. That is the point of the Amendment. It is to Quarter Sessions that most of these cases go. It is only the big cases, those of railways or factories, that go to the House of Lords or to the Court of Appeal, and in such cases the vast majority of ratepayers have no interest whatever. It is because I am anxious that the small man shall not be victimised in any form in going to a Court of Appeal that I move the Amendment.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If this Amendment were carried the Sub-section would read as follows:
The Central Valuation Committee may appear as parties on the hearing of any such case for the purpose of supporting any contention with respect to the question at issue and shall in any case in which a question is submitted to the High Court by the Minister under Sub-section (1) of this Section contribute such amount towards the costs of any persons appearing on the hearing for the purpose of supporting the contrary contention as may be agreed between the Central Valuation Committee and the said persons or, as failing such agreement, may be determined by the High Court.
I emphasise the word "shall," because it brings out the fact that the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend would impose upon the Central Valuation Committee a liability the limits of which they would be unable to foresee. My hon. and gallant Friend agrees, I think, that the result of his Amendment might be to bankrupt the Central Valuation Committee, who have no power to precept on any other body and are solely dependent for funds on voluntary sources. There is another alternative. The Central Valuation Committee might see what agreement they could make with any persons who might be desirous of supporting a view contrary to that which they were supporting. If they found that the expenses would be more than they could meet they would not be able to move at all and therefore the real result of the Amendment would be to limit the usefulness of the Clause. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover would allow me to remind him that any person appearing to support the contrary contention, where the Minister has stated a case for the decision of the Court, does not, if the decision of the Court goes against them, run any risk of having to carry the costs of the Central Valuation Committee. I suggest it would be a little unreasonable to say that at the same time you will protect him in the way suggested by the Amendment. I would point out that the Clause, as it stands, gives the Central Valuation Committee the power to make a contribution towards the costs of such parties as, in their opinion, should appear in order that the contrary contention may be properly put before the Court; and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that that is all we need trouble about in this Clause.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I fancy that the object of the Mover of the Amendment is to ensure that in this matter of costs
the question should not be left entirely to the Central Valuation Committee. Certainly it seems a little undesirable that no one else should have a say, first as to whether or not costs should be allowed at all, and, secondly, as to what the amount should be. I think the question which is raised in these Amendments is, whether or not the matter of costs should be subject to appeal to the High Courts. I can see that there are objections to that course because it might involve a liability vastly beyond the means of the Committee. I suggest that if he could provide for it there might be an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister himself. I have tried to see whether in this Bill the Minister takes any kind of control of this particular point, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give consideration to the discovery of some means by which the Central Valuation Committee will not be the sole judge on this question of costs.

Mr. D. HERBERT: While I cannot help admitting that mere is a good deal in what my right hon. Friend the Minister has just said in opposition to this Amendment, I think the discussion shows that this Sub-section as now drawn can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. One of the objects of the Mover of the Amendment is to secure that the awarding of these costs, or the making of a contribution towards these costs, should be, to some extent, at the discretion of the Court and not altogether in the hands of the Valuation Committee. I think the Minister ought to consider some alteration in the position at present contemplated which appears to be this—that the Central Valuation Committee may appear for the purpose of supporting a particular contention and, if they see fit, may contribute such amount as they think proper to the costs of the person who is supporting a contrary contention. If the Central Valuation Committee has to appear before a Court of Justice for the purpose of arguing one particular contention and somebody else has to appear to argue the opposite contention, it is a little unfortunate—to use no stronger word—that in regard to costs the fate of the person arguing against the Committee should depend solely upon his opponents.

10.0 p.m.

Sir H. SLESSER: I think we ought to press this matter further and ask the
Minister for a further explanation. As the last speaker has pointed out, the position now is that the Central Valuation Committee—who may be assumed to be the promoters of the issue—may, if they like, pay the costs of the party who, in substance, will be their opponent. Surely it would be more satisfactory if there is to be an issue knit between the Central Valuation Committee on the one side and somebody who is supporting the contrary contention on the other side, that the High Court should decide what the costs should be and how they are to be divided. As between the Minister and the Mover of the Amendment, the fact seems to emerge that the Clause in its present form is unworkable and without any principle whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment surely he will redraft the Clause. At present there is no power to give costs to anybody. The question of course is not mentioned; all that the Clause says is that the Central Valuation Committee may, if they think proper, contribute towards the costs of the party supporting the opposite contention. But we do not know if there are going to be any costs. The costs of obtaining the opinion are not provided for at all; there are no rules of court dealing with the matter. It is not dealt with in the General rules, and the costs are not to abide the event. There is no discretion as to costs, and while the Clause will lead to confusion, I think the Amendment would make the confusion even worse.

Sir K. WOOD: The fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has disagreed with this proposal makes me feel more satisfied with the terms in which it is put before the House—having regard to the views which the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed on other legal matters, including the Trade Unions Act. The facts of the present position under the Clause appear to be these. This is not a question of a test case between different parties; this is a case where the Central Valuation Committee, which has voluntary funds, is going to obtain the opinion of the Court under the terms of this Clause. They are permitted to raise a certain association or body to put the contrary view in the Court, but inasmuch as they only have voluntary funds, it would be
perfectly impossible to carry out the suggestion that the Court should award the costs and that the costs should be at the discretion of the Court. It might be that the Central Valuation Committee would not have sufficient funds at its disposal to meet any order which the Court made regarding costs.
Therefore, I suggest that the suggestion made in the Clause is a practical one, and I think it will be found in practice that it will be workable, because no doubt the Central Valuation Committee. when a case has been submitted to the High Court, will approach some of the principal associations, which will no doubt themselves be concerned in a matter of this kind and be prepared to make some contribution so as to enable parties to appear. Anyone who wants to appear can do so, at his own expense, of course, if the Court gives him leave so to do. I think the Clause is perfectly workable, and that in practice the object which is sought to be attained, namely, to get some decision on difficult questions of law, will be attained in this way, but if you begin to say that the Court shall order a certain amount for costs, and matters of that kind, you will get into great difficulties and may thus frustrate the intention of the Clause. Therefore, as most hon. Members who have spoken, at any rate, agree that the Amendment is not practicable, in the circumstances I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should withdraw it.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The Parliamentary Secretary said, so far as I followed him, that when a point of this sort was put to the High Court on the representation of the Central Valuation Committee, it was not a question as between two parties,,but surely all these questions are questions as between two parties. Points of law with regard to the valuation of hereditaments must surely affect the fortunes of persons affected by the decision, and, so far as I can understand, the decision is as to whether or not there has been adequate representation of the other point of view.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Minor Amendments of principal Act.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out Subsection (3).
As far as I can make out, unless this Amendment is accepted, in the event of an assessment being altered merely, and not a new assessment being made, there will be no obligation on the part of the assessment committee to give notice to the occupier. I am not easy in my mind about it, however, and I want to be quite sure that this is the effect. In his speech on the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend explained Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 as being an economy and as being intended to prevent serving notice on the occupier where the owner was asking for a reduction. But I am not quite clear what is the point in Subsection (3) and whether it may not mean that in a certain case the occupier is not entitled to notice when the assessment is increased against him. It is in order to get an explanation on this point that I move this Amendment.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so, because this Sub-section will inflict a very definite hardship upon one single class of ratepayers, namely, the railway companies. Railway companies are rated in a very large number of parishes where they have no office or place of business, and ever since 1864 they have, under Section 5 of the Union Assessment Committee (Amendment) Act of that year, been entitled to receive notice of any alteration of assessment that is made upon them in all cases where they have no office or place of business in the parish where the assessment is altered. That Section of the Act of 1864 was repealed by the Act of 1925, which set up in place of that a right for all ratepayers to receive notice of any alteration of assessment, but that right is abolished under this Sub-section. I do not think it is a hardship on the general ratepayers, because that part of the Act of 1925 does not come into force until the 1st April of this year, and so the general ratepayers are losing nothing which they have in fact enjoyed, but that is not the case with the railway companies, because they are losing, not a new right which they have not enjoyed, but the old right which they had since 1864, and it is very difficult for a company which has no local office, like a big railway company, to keep in touch with
the continual changes of countless valuation lists in the countless parishes in which it contributes to the rates.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has not been able fully to ascertain what the particular effect of this Sub-section is, and I will try to make it clear. It does not apply to a case where an assessment is being reduced, where the occupier does not require notice. It refers to the case where an assessment is to be increased, and we are now suggesting that in such cases the occupier shall not have the notice provided under the Act of 1925. Of course, that does sound as if you were taking away from the occupier his opportunity of putting his case for having no alteration in the assessment, but the reason why the Schedule was drafted in its original form was that it was taken from the practice in London, because when the 1925 Bill was before the House, we were in effect trying to assimilate the procedure in the rest of the country to the procedure in London. In London it was necessary to have this notice given to the occupier because, if he did not take the opportunity and the assessment was altered, he was fixed with the increase in his assessment for another five years, but that is not so in the country, and it never was so in the country. In the country the ratepayer had an opportunity at any time of putting in his protest, of making his representations against an increased assessment made upon him, and that right has been preserved to him under the Rating and Valuation Act in Section 37. If at any time he is aggrieved by the fact that his assessment has been put up, he can make what is called in the Act a proposal, namely, a proposal for the alteration again of the assessment, and that can be taken to the assessment committee in the usual way.
Therefore, if, public notice having been given generally, without notice having been given to the specific occupier, and the occupier has not seen the public notice, or if he has neglected that opportunity, the first intimation that he will get is the demand for his rates, and when he gets that he will have an opportunity of making his proposal for an alteration. We have found that, in the case of certain authorities who have already
made a new valuation under this Act, this necessity of sending out notices to occupiers in every case has resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of very considerable sums of money. In one county borough we found that 240,000 notices of increased assessment had to be sent out, which entailed the employment of a large temporary staff, involving the expenditure of over £2,000. Really, this was of no particular benefit to the occupier where his full rights were reserved to him, and we ought not to allow the authorities to be involved in this unnecessary expenditure, once it was found that that was the result of the Act.
Another point has been raised by the hon. Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) with regard to the railways. The assessments in their case are revised by negotiations between the railway authorities and the associations of local authorities, and that will no doubt go on until we are able to introduce a new Measure for the rating of railways in the future; so, while I think it is true that this does do away with their rights, in practice it does not mean that they will suffer any loss, because their head offices will have particulars of any assessments that will have been made.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that will go on?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — RATING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Third Reading?

The LORD ADVOCATE(Mr. William Watson): Now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Third Reading of the Bill cannot be taken to-night, because it originated in a Money Committee.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1926.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,858 15s. ld., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain, for the year ended 31st March, 1927:—



Amount to be Voted.


Class II.
£
s.
d.


Vote 15A. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
25,858
15
1

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): This Excess Vote of £25,858 for the beet sugar subsidy, spent in the financial year 1925–26, is due to a change in the process of de-sugarisation of molasses. The subsidy on sugar is payable at the time of manufacture, but the subsidy on molasses is only payable on the amount which is delivered from the factory or used therein for the manufacture of stock. Until this time, it has been the practice for the sugar factory to de-sugarise their molasses during the long period when sugar was not being manufactured, but the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet. Corporation had installed a process which enabled them to desugarise the molasses from their group of factories at the same time as the manufacturing process of sugar was going on. The result of that was that money had to be paid out in subsidy earlier than was expected. There will be no increase in the total, however, because there has been a reduction in the amount of subsidy on molasses paid after the 1st April, 1927, more than counterbalancing the amount which, owing to this new process, had to be paid before. We provided a carry-over for this subsidy on molasses of £200,000. In fact, it was necessary to provide only £172,184 after the beginning of 1927–28, and there is, therefore, a saving of £27,800. That is more than equivalent to the £25,850 which has been unexpectedly spent before. I hope the Committee will agree to the excess.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: There are one or two points on this Excess Vote to which the attention of the Committee should be directed. The Minister of Agriculture has pointed out that a certain
sum was taken in the financial year in question for a beet sugar subsidy, but the White Paper now before the Committee indicates that a Supplementary Estimate was also taken in February,1927, and, notwithstanding that supplementary provision, a sum of £25,800 in excess of the amount voted for this subsidy was actually paid during that financial year. This is a comparatively small sum, but the Committee will appreciate at once that in all these excess votes an important principle is involved, and that however small the sum it is our duty to look very narrowly and with the strictest scrutiny on the amount by which the sum voted by this House is exceeded by any Department. The Minister has explained that owing to this process of desugarisation of molasses having been brought forward some months, a larger sum was required before the 31st March, 1927, which, strictly speaking, would not have fallen to be paid until a later date. I would like the House to guard against a suggestion made by the Minister that that state of affairs is atoned for or made right by some subsequent deduction. The fact remains that within the financial year they have exceeded the sum which the House voted, and following the usual practice that has been scrutinised, in the first instance, by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee saw no reason whatever to object to it on the facts of the situation, but they would be the first to direct attention to the principle which is involved. On this narrow Excess Vote we are not at liberty, perhaps, to discuss the whole range of the subsidy. The Committee will agree that we must carefully examine any Excess Vote which it put forward during the financial year, especially when we are dealing with a subject like this, and more particularly with a subsidy which is now assuming such large dimensions. Any tendency to get in advance of the contribution voted within each financial year is a, very important consideration. I know that this is a very particular and exceptional case, but I think we are entitled to press the Government to see that the actual provisions in the new financial year will obviate the necessity for making supplementary provision in the future.
We must see that the Estimates cover the whole proposition, and we should
guard against the House afterwards being asked to approve of any Excess Votes, even to the tune of a comparatively small sum like this. When these Estimates were previously before the House, we argued from these benches in favour of an inquiry into the general financial problem which is growing up in connection with the beet sugar subsidy. This Excess Vote is a reminder of that problem, and that a case is being put forward either for a modification of the existing scheme, or some increase in the amount of the public provision which has to be made each year. The time has come when the whole problem should be impartially reviewed, because the sums involved are very large indeed, to say nothing of the working conditions.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is now unduly attempting to discuss the policy.

Mr. GRAHAM: I recognise that what I am arguing is slightly outside the Excess Vote before the Committee. When the proper time comes we shall ask for the whole case to be reviewed, and for a full inquiry into the financial position of this scheme.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Whether or not this Excess Vote is a large one is a matter of opinion. With all due respect, I say that any sum which amounts to £25,000, which is brought up a year and a half after it is actually due, must be a subject of comment in the House of Commons. The Public Accounts Committee have already taken cognisance of the fact that this sum should have been provided for in the Estimates for the year 1927, and the Minister of Agriculture has not given the Committee any information as to how this delay arose. He says it is due to the fact that the de-sugarisation of molasses has been hastened. We know that from the explanation circulated with the Paper, but how does it happen that in the return which ought to come in week by week as provided for in the Act there should have been no mention of the claim to be made by the Associated Scottish Companies for £25,000? Is the Department carrying out the obligation laid upon them by the Act? As I understand it, the payment in respect of the amount of molasses, which in each week is delivered from the factories, would be the
basis of payment, and provision is made in Section 1, Sub-section (4), of the Act as follows:
A payment shall be made from time to time as soon as may be after the amount payable in respect of each week has been ascertained.
Can the Minister tell us how the returns come in from the factories? Do they come in week by week, in accordance with the Act of Parliament; and, if they come in week by week, how does it happen that the amount so ascertained was £25,000 out?
The Minister has not told us how it happens that this comes into one year or into the other year. if the amount was due week by week, surely it should have been possible for him, in drawing up his Supplementary Estimate in February, 1927, to make a much nearer shot as to what was to be payable by the end of the year. The irregularity of this account-keeping is in complete harmony with the whole system of distribution of the subsidy. It is not open to us to discuss the subsidy as a whole, but we can take this as an example of the kind of thing that has gone on ever since this money was distributed on such a lavish scale. The question which naturally arises is the question of date; that is the question which is raised by this Vote. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has drawn attention to the fact that the parent Act provides for a fall in the subsidy from year to year. If we sanction this precedent of accounts being brought up a year or a year and a half after they are due, owing to acceleration of the process, it will be possible, by the end of this year, 1928, by a repetition of this process, or perhaps by some other process equally unexpected by the Ministry, for companies to come into the scale, provided in the First Schedule to the Act, of many shillings more than they would obtain if they went over into the later accounting period.
The Minister, I am sure, must have the Schedule well in mind, and I need not repeat it to him, but perhaps he will allow me to point out that, after the autumn of this year, the subsidy will drop from 19s. 6d. to 13s., and, that being so, it is obvious that any means that can
be adopted by the companies to drag their processes into the period ending in October, 1928, would put them on the higher and not on the lower scale. We are asked to sanction, by this loose account-keeping, a process by which the companies might be able to get more in the way of grants than would be anticipated under the parent Act. Would the Minister give us further information as to when this omission was discovered? How long was it after the process of desugarisation of molasses had been brought into operation by the Scottish companies? We have no information as to when the omission was discovered, and that, certainly. should be communicated to the Committee before they are asked to sanction this amount. May we ask, also, when the payment was actually made to the companies? That, too, is a pertinent question on which information ought to be given, either by the Minister or by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Financial Secretary, who ought to be the guardian of the public purse, is no doubt well qualified to tell us when this payment was made, and why the omission was not brought to the notice of his Department at a much earlier date. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister if he can tell us what safeguards there are against a further repetition of this occurrence? I think that, before the Committee allows this amount to go through, a satisfactory answer should be given to each of these questions.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I know nothing about the details of this particular excess, but I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) knows as well as anyone else that you cannot regulate to suit yourself the time at which crops will grow, and that you cannot convert sugar beet into beet sugar until the sugar beet has been grown and harvested; and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no factory can possibly expedite the period of its campaign so as to conduct the manufacture of molasses before October in the year in which the crop is grown.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think that, really, the questions which have been asked about this Excess Vote are largely based upon a misunderstanding. We have no
choice in regard to paying the subsidy; it is laid down in the Statute, and we have to pay according to the claims which come in weekly. The estimates are necessarily based on the arrangements between the factories and the farmers, of which the factories alone can have knowledge. We frame our Estimates on the latest information which the factories can provide. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runeiman) knows, we have to pay week by week, but he equally must know that we do not, fortunately, bring forward Supplementary Estimates week by week. We have to lay them—or we did last year—at the beginning of the year on the best information the factories at that period were able to give us. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know when the payments were made. The exact date I cannot give him. The law says we have to pay the money, and we were paying out at a very large rate, and I suppose it was in the last week of the year that this £25,000 became short.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the case. The fact is that the Supplementary Estimate was taken in 1927, within a week or two of the end of the Financial Year, and accordingly on any accurate computation this excess should have been absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Supplementary Estimate has to be framed and laid a considerable time before.

Mr. GRAHAM: It was clearly pointed out in Committee upstairs that this Supplementary Estimate was taken in February, within a week or two of the end of the financial year.

Mr. GUINNESS: The financial year ends on 31st March. How can you tell in a Government Department what demand the factories will make in the last weeks of the year except on the factories' own information? Our estimates of the subsidy payable are based, in the only way we could base them, on the knowledge the factories gave us, and really this fear of bringing forward demands for payment from one financial year into the previous one, is not applicable to the machinery provided under the
Act, because the Act lays down that the subsidy varies not according to the financial year, which is what decides as to whether the Vote comes within the Estimates for the year or falls into the next year, but according to what is known as the sugar campaign between the 30th September and the 1st October of the following year. Therefore, there is really no danger of any expedient being used by the factory to anticipate the falling due of payment in order to get the advantage of a higher subsidy by bringing their manufacture into the earlier year.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not inform the Committee when the omission was discovered and when the payment was made? It is not sufficient to say there are difficulties in the case and you cannot be sure.

Mr. GUINNESS: I have already said I cannot give the date. We paid out £3,200,000 last year. We were £25,000 short, and it is obvious that if the money was spread out more or less uniformly through the season, it was at the very end of the season that the deficiency occurred.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: A few weeks ago the Minister presented a very large Supplementary Estimate for this beet sugar subsidy. Was it impossible a few weeks ago to foresee that this extra sum would be required?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Gentleman cannot have looked at the Excess Vote. We are not talking about the sugar-beet subsidy for this year at all. This is an excess Vote brought before the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way in the following year to deal with an excess that took place at the beginning of 1927.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, when was it discovered that this payment was made? In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of his answer to the six direct questions put to him by my right hon. Friend, we shall certainly record our Vote against the Estimate.

Mr. HARRIS: Is there any chance of this occurring next year and the year after? Can we never be certain where we stand?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is absolutely impossible to give any undertaking that an Estimate which has to be framed before the crop is even harvested will be exactly accurate. When we brought in the Supplementary Vote to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we anticipated that we should have expended very much more on sugar beet. We estimated that the crop would be about the rate of the 1926–27 crop, that is about 8½ tons to the acre. In fact, it has turned out at only about 6½ tons to the acre. We estimated that there would be a normal sugar content of something over 17 per cent., but owing to the bad season it has turned out to be just over 16 per cent. Obviously, the Estimate which is laid before Parliament, whether the original Estimate before the crop has been sown or last autumn's Supplementary Estimate before the crop has been harvested, cannot possibly be of great accuracy.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The obvious lesson to learn from this is, that we may never expect to have an accurate Estimate from the right hon. Gentleman as to the cost of the subsidy, and that a Supplementary Vote each year is to be necessary. If we are to have an original Estimate, and a Supplementary Estimate in the spring, and may have an Excess Vote later on, perhaps the Financial Secretary for the Treasury will let us know when this payment was made. Was it paid some weeks before the end of the financial year, of just before the end of the financial year?

Mr. GUINNESS: I told the right hon. Gentleman it was just before the end of the financial year, and I regret that in the case of this country it is impossible to standardise agricultural production.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can quite understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely it is enough to come here for a Supplementary Estimate

for enough money to cover the liabilities to the end of the financial year. Why could not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury arrange for postponement of payment until 31st March had been reached? If he says that that would be impossible, I would point out that it is repeatedly done with regard to other Departments.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these Supplementary Estimates have to go through their normal stages, and be embodied in an Appropriation Bill. We cannot have a special Supplementary Estimate on the 31st March to cover the possibility of a small excess on sugar beet. We have to estimate it to the best of our ability at the normal time.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret having to press the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the whole object of having Supplementary Estimates in spring is to clean up outstanding accounts? That has always been the object, and always will be the object. What the right hon. Gentleman is claiming is that his Department alone of all Departments of State is to have the right to come, not only for Supplementary Estimates, but also for Excess Votes. What does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say about that?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am only surprised that the Estimate has been so close. After all it devolves on this——

Mr. HARRIS: It is a gamble.

Mr. SAMUEL: It is a gamble with the sun and a gamble with the weather almost up to the last moment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219 ; Noes, 101.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briscoe, Richard George


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bennett, A. J.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blundell, F. N.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Burman, J. B.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Campbell, E. T.


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth. C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Philipson, Mabel


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilcher, G.


Christle, J. A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Preston, William


Colman, N. C. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, Sir Walter


Cope, Major William
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Ramsden, E.


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Remer, J. R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb"l"nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Salmon, Major I.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W"dsworth, Putney)


Dixey, A. C.
lnskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smithers, Waldron


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Fielden, E. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Finburgh, S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (westm'eland)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Storry-Deans, R.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tinne, J. A.


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gillett, George M.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waiden)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, central)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hamilton, Sir George
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Hammersley, S. S.
Oakley, T.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Harrison, G. J. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wragg, Herbert


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Perring, Sir William George
Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
England, Colonel A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Batey, Joseph
Forrest, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.


Briant, Frank
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, T.


Broad, F. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Kirkwood, D.


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Brown, Earnest (Leith)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lindley, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lowth, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harris, Percy A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Compton, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Connolly, M.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mackinder, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
MacLaren, Andrew


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)




March, S.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Varley, Frank B.


Montague, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Murnin, H.
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Naylor, T. E.
Sexton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Welsh, J. C.


Paling, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Ritson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph



Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Tomlinson, R. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. Ives)
Townend, A. E.
Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the sum of £25,858 15s. ld. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision for enabling local authorities to make by-laws for preventing injury being caused by petroleum-filling stations to the amenities of rural scenery and places of beauty and historic interest.
I ask the House to allow this instruction to be given to the Committee which is to consider the Petroleum Bill. That Bill makes some few Amendments to the law, and there is a strong feeling that the opportunity should be taken in dealing with this Measure to protect the amenities of the countryside and places of rural beauty and interest. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) has a private Member's Bill on this subject, but I understand that as it will not be reached in the ordinary course he proposes to withdraw it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised this point on the Second Reading of the

Petroleum Bill but the decision of Mr. Speaker was that without an Instruction it would not be competent for the Committee to deal with the matter. I believe the House is fully agreed that it is desirable that local authorities should have some powers in this regard, and the Instruction I am asking the House to give to the Committee is not a power to decide the matter but a power to consider the subject and make such amendments as they think necessary.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision for enabling local authorities to make by-laws for preventing injury being caused by petroleum-filling stations to the amenities of rural scenery and places of beauty and historic interest."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

POST OFFICE, SALE (REMOVAL).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. TOWNEND: I desire the indulgence of the House while I raise, briefly, a matter which I submitted at Question Time a few days ago to the Postmaster-General. On that occasion, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had conferred with the local authority at Sale in regard to the objections they took to the action his Department had taken in the matter of the post office there, and in answer he indicated that the representations made by the local authority had been fully considered by his Department. I want to suggest that quite unintentionally the
answer given by the right hon. Gentleman did not fully agree with the facts. Perhaps he has not the same information as I have, because I feel confident that had he had this information there is not the slightest doubt that the very definite attitude he has taken would have been considerably softened. The facts are these. Some 12 months ago a rumour got abroad that the Post Office proposed to transfer the post office at Sale across the highway, where at present it stands; and at once a certain contingency arose in the mind of the urban district council which they felt should be brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. They, therefore, got in touch with the district office in Manchester, and desired to be allowed to submit their opinions in respect of this change. They were informed—it is now about 12 months ago—that at that time there was no need for them to submit the information which they desired to place before the Post Office authorities.
That is the point that I desire to emphasise now. A couple of months later, having heard nothing from the Department, they repeated their desire that a deputation should see the Minister, and were amazed to discover, without having been given the opportunity they desired, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department had come to a decision without full knowledge of the local circumstances of the case, and had acquired, for the purposes of extension, a building on a site of the highway opposite to that on which the present Post Office stands—a property known as Abbotsford. This seemed to the local authority to be rather unusual action—I put it no further than that—in view of what they desired to submit to the Postmaster-General. The position is not quite as simple as it appears. The highway upon which the Post Office stands is a very important one. It leads from the thickly populated industrial area of South-East Lancashire to the Cheshire Plain and the North Wales district, which are very largely the recreation ground, particularly during week-ends, of that highly industrialised area. When I say that each Saturday and Sunday, when the largest volume of traffic passes, at least 20,000 fast moving motor vehicles go over that highway, the House can understand the risk that is
involved in asking the population of Sale, numbering something like 18,000, to cross the road to obtain the postal facilities of the district. One can quite appreciate the apprehension——

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present——

Mr. TOWNEND: As I was saying, the highway along which this traffic passes is the highway which the Postmaster-General desires the population of Sale to traverse, for the purpose of getting postal facilities. There is a further point which I desire to emphasise. The site of the present post office is practically face to face with the proposed site of the new post office and on either side of the proposed site lies a district constituting what is locally known as "the death trap." When I inform the Postmaster-General that on every day of the year there is an accident resulting in injury or death as a result of the heavy motor traffic at this point, he may begin to understand the apprehensions of the local authority. Up to now, despite repeated applications, he has declined to receive a deputation. It is true that Sale is growing, and that the growth of the district has been on the Sale side of the highway; and if there was no alternative to the existing post office arrangement, except that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, of course there would be nothing further to be said. But there are two other suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. When I submitted this matter to the Noble Lord, the Assistant Postmaster-General, he appeared to be impressed by the facts which I brought to his notice and he seemed to feel that even though a decision had been taken there was a case for reconsideration of the matter.
I suggested as one alternative an extension of the property which the Post Office at present possesses there—an alternative which I believe lies within the power of the Postmaster-General. There is also a site known as the Claremont Road site, which has been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman's Department either by myself or in correspondence by the Sale local authority. The Claremont Road site is still available, and, although it might cost a little more money, it ought to be considered. The reply from the Post Office to our
suggestion indicates that the site might involve an additional £3,000 for extended cables. Surely, if a decision has to be made, as between an expenditure of £3,000 and the highly increased risk to life and limb involved in the present proposal, the right hon. Gentleman will not show any hesitation. I am sure he is not hard-hearted and that he is fully alive to the rights of the population in that district; and I am confident that if he were to ask this House for £3,000 to meet this increased expenditure and to enable him to reconsider this decision, it would be readily granted. It is the question of the possible risk to life and limb involved in this change and that question only, which has prompted the local authority all along to ask the right hon. Gentleman to receive a deputation.
I still feel that before a decision of such importance to an area like Sale is made, before their postal facilities and amenities are in any way varied, the very least that the right hon. Gentleman ought to do is to receive a deputation from them. After all, they know the local circumstances and requirements, and neither they nor I have up to now been able to see why he has refused to give an opportunity for them to meet him and lay before him in a full way what I have endeavoured to submit tonight. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he agrees to this change, which is bound to be a calamity, as they believe, to the people of the Sale district, to reconsider the decision of his Department and prevent what they believe to be something that is dangerous and to a large extent rendering postal facilities even more inaccessible than they have been hitherto.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I do not complain either that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question or of the manner in which he has addressed himself to the subject, but there are a few more facts connected with this matter than those which the hon. Member has so far indicated. Sale, as the House probably knows, is a very busy and populous area near Manchester. It is served by a number of town sub-office post offices and by one main post office. The lease of the main post office buildings runs out in
1931, and the first question which we had to consider was whether anything could be done by way of altering or extending the existing premises. My advisers found, on going into that matter, that it was impracticable and, if practicable, undesirable. It was undesirable, because even with any extension which could be made of those premises they could never be made fully satisfactory for our purposes to cope with the needs of the growing population. It was impracticable because a renewal of the lease was indeed somewhat doubtful and the price asked for a renewal or a sale was extremely high.
It was necessary to provide fresh premises, because we want to erect in Sale, or in the Sale area, a new telephone exchange to serve the needs of that district when it is converted to the automatic system, and, as Manchester itself is due to be converted to the automatic system in 1931, it was clearly very desirable that the sub-exchanges round Manchester, the satellite exchanges, as they are called, should, so far as practicable, be also converted at about the same date. Therefore, we were very anxious to have premises available in 1931 with an automatic telephone exchange ready equipped there. In 1926, therefore, we began to consider the question of alternative sites, and after considering a number of them, they boiled themselves down to two. There is one site with a house and some grounds known as Abbotsford, to which the hon. Member has referred, and there is another site, which he called the Claremont Road site, but which I know as the School Road site. I imagine they are one and the same.
The facts are that in February, 1927, the Sale Traders' Association made representations to the Postmaster-Surveyor of Manchester, the head postal authority in that area, in favour of the site in School Road. In March, 1927, the urban council made similar representations. These were considered and weighed by the Postmaster of Manchester, who is a competent authority in a matter of this kind and these dimensions. A decision was taken in April, 1927, that on every ground the site of Abbotsford was preferable. Treasury authority was asked for the Abbotsford site in May, 1927, and the purchase was forthwith completed.

Mr. TOWNEND: Between the request in March of the Sale Urban District Council for a deputation to be received, and the decision in April of the right hon. Gentleman, was any communication sent by his Department to the Sale Urban District Council that that deputation should be received?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not, that I am aware of. All I am aware of are the representations that were made by the Traders' Association and by the urban district council in February and March, and I was presented with a situation under which the site had been authorised and had been acquired. I should exceedingly regret if it be thought either by the Traders' Association or the urban district council that I had been guilty of any discourtesy in not seeing them. The fact is, that the Sale Traders' letter of February stated in full detail their claims in favour of the School Road site. The urban district council adopted and endorsed the claims made by the Sale Traders' Association. These were all fully considered by the competent authority at the time. Further than that, up to this time no considerations other than those urged in that letter have ever been put forward by anybody.
I will proceed to look at these considerations and the House will then see what they were. It is said that objection is taken to the site of Abbotsford. When I came to look into the question myself, I perceived at once what the real ground of objection was, and I will tell the House. Abbotsford is situated, not in Sale, but in the adjacent borough of Ashton-upon-Mersey. It is true that it is only just in the adjacent borough, because it is only just across the road, but the real objection is that the site of this post office happens to be in Ashton. I am all for civic pride, but in matters of public convenience, what matters is convenience and not locality.
The hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the road is dangerous to cross, and that there are 18,000 people in Sale. He might have added that Sale Urban District Council and the Traders' Association said there were 8,000 people in Ashton. I agree that this is a busy road, but not all the inhabitants of Sale are going to use this particular post office. Sale is already extremely well provided. On the contrary, you have got to remember that,
if the road be dangerous for Sale people to cross, it is equally dangerous for Ashton people to cross, and I am informed—and my local people have been carefully into this—that at least as many people from Ashton as from Sale will use this particular post office. That is really what matters. Let me add a word or two in support of the decision that was taken, and, I think, perfectly rightly, in favour of the site at Abbotsford. The postmaster there has reported strongly in favour of this site.
In the first place, it was really a matter of urgency to get possession of a site in order that we might begin with the arrangements for the erection of a telephone exchange. On the Abbotsford site we could get vacant possession; on the other site in School Road we could not get vacant possession. The hon. Member has said something about the price of the School Road site. I say nothing about that, but I will say that the price of the Abbotsford site was extremely reasonable, and it is one of the rare instances I have known where the Inland Revenue valuation coincided with the price that the owner was asking. In the third place, there is a great deal more space at Abbotsford for our purposes. In the fourth place, from the point of view of a telephone centre, and it was for telephone purposes we principally required it, it is a much more convenient and practicable site. The difference in the initial costs between the two sites is, as the hon. Gentleman said, something like £3,000, that is £3,000 in favour of the Abbotsford site as against the School Road site. I have not the slightest doubt that the decision taken was perfectly right. I am very sorry that the Sale Council and the Sale Traders' Association should disagree, but, after all, in all these matters I have to be guided by our officers.

Mr. TOWNEND: But they do not disagree.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understood they did disagree, and that they still think that the School Road site is preferable to the site the Post Office has actually acquired. The only attitude I have taken up is that all I am concerned to do is to secure the best property at the lowest possible price for the public convenience, and that I believe I have done. If in doing so I have run counter
to the views of those in the locality, all I can say is that I have to judge, and, after all, I have to take the responsibility and judge to the best of my ability what the public interest is. I am perfectly convinced that in view of all the circumstances we have done perfectly right from the public point of view in acquiring this particular site.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the decision of the right hon. Gentleman on this question
is right, but it is a very material point from the point of view of the traders. I know the district, and the great bulk of the shops in the area are on the Sale side, and not on the Ashton side; and that would give force to the representations which have been made, if my memory serves me right.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after
Eleven o'Clock